Shooting at CT Elementary School

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

stevey_frac
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:27 pm UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby stevey_frac » Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:56 pm UTC

After a quick reading of Feinstein's bill, thumbhole stocks will make guns an assault weapon.

How does that make ANY sense whatsoever?!

It's a slight different way of gripping the stock. It doesn't even have to be "scary" synthetic black, it could be a nice high gloss walnut thumbhole stock, but nope... ASSAULT WEAPON! HIDE YOUR KIDS! BAN HAMMER!

#sigh#

So thankful I don't have to deal with that crap. Go Canada.

EDIT: Here's the coles notes version:

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/ ... lt-weapons

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3715
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby EdgarJPublius » Sun Dec 30, 2012 8:08 pm UTC

I'm consistently surprised at how capable gun-control supporters seem to be at learning exactly the wrong lesson from their past failings.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
Eseell
Posts: 789
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:58 am UTC
Location: WA

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Eseell » Sun Dec 30, 2012 9:05 pm UTC

It is the same lesson many people learn on failure. The same wrong lesson.

Do it again, only harder!
"Math is hard work and it occupies your mind -- and it doesn't hurt to learn all you can of it, no matter what rank you are; everything of any importance is founded on mathematics." - Robert A. Heinlein

stevey_frac
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:27 pm UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby stevey_frac » Sun Dec 30, 2012 9:09 pm UTC

Feinstein also wants all grandfathered assault weapons (read: every semi-automatic rifle currently in existence) to be part of a national gun registry, with various ramifications.

Canada just got rid of our long gun registry, because it was widely regarded as not having done anything useful. WTG Senator.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3715
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby EdgarJPublius » Sun Dec 30, 2012 9:43 pm UTC

Does anyone have the list of specifically exempt firearms?
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
Brace
Posts: 1169
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:40 am UTC
Location: Denver, Co
Contact:

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Brace » Sun Dec 30, 2012 9:57 pm UTC

It hasn't been written yet >_>
"The future is the only kind of property that the masters willingly concede to the slaves" - Albert Camus

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3715
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby EdgarJPublius » Sun Dec 30, 2012 10:01 pm UTC

So how does she know that it'll have over 900 firearms on it?
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
Brace
Posts: 1169
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:40 am UTC
Location: Denver, Co
Contact:

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Brace » Sun Dec 30, 2012 10:08 pm UTC

I have no idea. At all. But the fact remains that the actual legislative proposal hasn't been written yet.

<_<
"The future is the only kind of property that the masters willingly concede to the slaves" - Albert Camus

User avatar
Eseell
Posts: 789
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:58 am UTC
Location: WA

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Eseell » Sun Dec 30, 2012 10:45 pm UTC

I just don't get it. What makes, in a gun control supporter's mind, all of these 900+ exempted firearms less dangerous than the non-exempt firearms? Presumably they're exempted because they otherwise contain features that would make them "assault weapons." The whole thing is a farce. There's no way it'll pass with the NFA registration requirement; likely it's only there so that Feinstein can look tough and it can be dropped in the name of "compromise."
"Math is hard work and it occupies your mind -- and it doesn't hurt to learn all you can of it, no matter what rank you are; everything of any importance is founded on mathematics." - Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3715
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby EdgarJPublius » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:14 am UTC

Without knowing what the list of firearms actually is, it's impossible to tell if there may be some mitigating factors in their design/features. More likely, the exempt list is intended to divide the firearms community in hopes that owners of exempted firearms won't realize that they'll be next on the chopping block if this legislation passes. This is supported by the line from the summary exclaiming how the list and the grandfathering of current firearms is intended to 'protect' "legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners".
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:00 am UTC

I admit, I'm a little disappointed by the continual portrayal as the only legitimate use of firearms as for hunting. Me, I'm a target shooter. I don't see myself ever hunting again, because I live in an urban area, and don't really need the food. Nobody give me any grief over enjoying shooting a bow at a target, I don't see why guns are any different. Both are Olympic sports, after all.

There's actually rather a lot of subsets of the shooting community, come to think of it. The target shooters(hell, you could break this out by type), the self defense people, the collector/historian types, the military types, the hunter types. There's overlap, sure, but the portrayal of hunting as the only legitimate shooting activity irks me.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby yurell » Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:25 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Nobody give me any grief over enjoying shooting a bow at a target, I don't see why guns are any different. Both are Olympic sports, after all.


Try mowing down people with a bow; you'll find it considerably more difficult than with a modern firearm.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

stevey_frac
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:27 pm UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby stevey_frac » Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:37 am UTC

yurell wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Nobody give me any grief over enjoying shooting a bow at a target, I don't see why guns are any different. Both are Olympic sports, after all.


Try mowing down people with a bow; you'll find it considerably more difficult than with a modern firearm.


It would be a different type of assault. Bows are a lot quieter, so you could use that to your advantage. Take out a solitary target, then hide and wait for people to notice and respond, and start shooting at them, while trying to conceal your position.

Alternatively, position yourself on a tall building, and fire into a crowd at range. You don't really have to aim that much, you should be able to loose an arrow every 6 seconds. You probably only kill a few yourself, but the resulting stampede might kill a bunch more.

All you need to get mass murder status is 4 warm bodies. That doesn't seem particularly challenging for a bowman.

If we keep dramatising the bow in movies like Brave, and The Hunger Games, you could definitely see scenarios like that playing out...

My point? Bows are just as lethal as guns. In fact, assuming you score a chest hit, a broadhead is much more lethal than a .223.

User avatar
Brace
Posts: 1169
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:40 am UTC
Location: Denver, Co
Contact:

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Brace » Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:51 am UTC

"The future is the only kind of property that the masters willingly concede to the slaves" - Albert Camus

stevey_frac
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:27 pm UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby stevey_frac » Mon Dec 31, 2012 3:08 am UTC

To be sure: That's really sweet. And it's actually faster than a typical gun shooter. But I think my 6 seconds per arrow figure is more representative of a relatively untrained archer.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3715
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby EdgarJPublius » Mon Dec 31, 2012 3:22 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I admit, I'm a little disappointed by the continual portrayal as the only legitimate use of firearms as for hunting. Me, I'm a target shooter. I don't see myself ever hunting again, because I live in an urban area, and don't really need the food. Nobody give me any grief over enjoying shooting a bow at a target, I don't see why guns are any different. Both are Olympic sports, after all.

There's actually rather a lot of subsets of the shooting community, come to think of it. The target shooters(hell, you could break this out by type), the self defense people, the collector/historian types, the military types, the hunter types. There's overlap, sure, but the portrayal of hunting as the only legitimate shooting activity irks me.



Didn't you know? Sportspeople and the urban poor (demographic most likely to need a firearm for self-defense) don't actually have rights. Only rich white people and farmers have rights.

extremely relevant video
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Dec 31, 2012 11:26 am UTC

yurell wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Nobody give me any grief over enjoying shooting a bow at a target, I don't see why guns are any different. Both are Olympic sports, after all.


Try mowing down people with a bow; you'll find it considerably more difficult than with a modern firearm.


*shrug* Jack Churchill didn't, and that was in WW2, where they were basically all armed and shooting back.

Granted, you don't have the media constantly telling you how dangerous bows are, so nobody appears to even try these days, but if there's one thing that man had in spades, it was creativity.

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Garm » Mon Dec 31, 2012 7:29 pm UTC

The comparison between bow and automatic weapon is specious. Two reasons off the top of my head: 1. It takes somewhat more training to be able to hit a moving target with a bow than a gun, 2. It's extremely difficult to use a bow to indiscriminately spray ammunition at a location.

How about Smart Guns? Those would have prevented at least this latest shooting in Connecticut.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6802
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby sardia » Mon Dec 31, 2012 7:32 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
yurell wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Nobody give me any grief over enjoying shooting a bow at a target, I don't see why guns are any different. Both are Olympic sports, after all.


Try mowing down people with a bow; you'll find it considerably more difficult than with a modern firearm.


*shrug* Jack Churchill didn't, and that was in WW2, where they were basically all armed and shooting back.

Granted, you don't have the media constantly telling you how dangerous bows are, so nobody appears to even try these days, but if there's one thing that man had in spades, it was creativity.

You're bullshitting. A good archer takes years of practice, a dude with a gun takes weeks. That's why historical armies switched over to early guns even though 100 archers were better than 100 gunners.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10500
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Dec 31, 2012 7:48 pm UTC

Garm wrote:
How about Smart Guns? Those would have prevented at least this latest shooting in Connecticut.


Assuming it's not possible to disable the restriction without destroying the gun itself, it would actually be a good idea. The NRA will of course object, if not violently then loudly. But in such a world it'd be easy to blanketly imprison anyone with a non grandfathered dumb gun, as they must obviously be doing something illegal. I'm just nervous about the world with computer chips under the skin and RIDN codes on the back of the neck. I want a bit more respect than stripping naked and getting on the probulator.

User avatar
Shivahn
Posts: 2200
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:17 am UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Shivahn » Mon Dec 31, 2012 7:50 pm UTC

Garm wrote:How about Smart Guns? Those would have prevented at least this latest shooting in Connecticut.


I am a huge fan of requiring more than trigger locks for guns, and the government heavily subsidizing safes and such. I think that's more feasible at the moment.

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Garm » Mon Dec 31, 2012 7:56 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Garm wrote:
How about Smart Guns? Those would have prevented at least this latest shooting in Connecticut.


Assuming it's not possible to disable the restriction without destroying the gun itself, it would actually be a good idea. The NRA will of course object, if not violently then loudly. But in such a world it'd be easy to blanketly imprison anyone with a non grandfathered dumb gun, as they must obviously be doing something illegal. I'm just nervous about the world with computer chips under the skin and RIDN codes on the back of the neck. I want a bit more respect than stripping naked and getting on the probulator.


If you don't like RFID chips (don't blame you) then support other forms of Smart Gun technology. There's some company that's doing grip recognition. As for all the existing guns? I don't know what to do with them. I'm sure someone can figure something out. If the NRA weren't such douchey loudmouths I'd say that some sort of buyback program coupled with a private sector solution would be the way to go.

Something that just occurred to me is that we can't let the fact that there are a blazillion guns out there that aren't smart deter us from making smart guns. If we'd started doing this 20ish years ago when the technology became available then we'd have fewer problems with these sorts of shootings and as a result, less call for gun control. I understand that guns to have a shelf life, but I think if we did make all the guns "smart" then we'd see a reduction in this sort of violence. Of course and sort of mandate that all guns needed to be "smart" would cause all the gun-nuts to go crazy and horde all the "dumb" guns cuz of "guvmint" or whatever bogeyman they're hiding in the woods about now.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10500
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Dec 31, 2012 8:02 pm UTC

I think at this point it's clear the NRA is less about protecting the rights of Americans and more about supporting the gun manufacturers.

User avatar
Eseell
Posts: 789
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:58 am UTC
Location: WA

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Eseell » Mon Dec 31, 2012 8:09 pm UTC

I would strongly oppose a requirement for smart guns. I want at least some of my guns to be as reliable as mechanically possible. If they're going to be useful for self-defense, they have to work the first time, every time, and I want them to be usable by basically everyone in an emergency. I don't want to have to worry about electronics or batteries or anything else that can be disabled remotely, or isn't 100% reliable.

For my "fun" guns, fine, they can have all that crap. I don't care if I pull the trigger on a square range and it doesn't go bang; in the worst case I have to deal with a squib, and in the best case I need a new watch battery. But that isn't acceptable if I actually need to draw my carry gun some day.
"Math is hard work and it occupies your mind -- and it doesn't hurt to learn all you can of it, no matter what rank you are; everything of any importance is founded on mathematics." - Robert A. Heinlein

stevey_frac
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:27 pm UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby stevey_frac » Mon Dec 31, 2012 8:12 pm UTC

Shivahn wrote:
Garm wrote:How about Smart Guns? Those would have prevented at least this latest shooting in Connecticut.


I am a huge fan of requiring more than trigger locks for guns, and the government heavily subsidizing safes and such. I think that's more feasible at the moment.


While I personally own a safe for my firearms, it was more out of convenience than safety. Trigger locks take time and tools to defeat, and safes are just as insecure.

With time and a bit of tools, you could cut through my safe, and take the guns. And with time and a bit of tools, you can drill a trigger lock out.

What's more interesting, is why didn't the guns Adam Lanza used have trigger locks on them, unless there has been new information released I am unaware of?

stevey_frac
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:27 pm UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby stevey_frac » Mon Dec 31, 2012 8:13 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I think at this point it's clear the NRA is less about protecting the rights of Americans and more about supporting the gun manufacturers.


Comments like this make me want to donate to the NRA.

User avatar
Shivahn
Posts: 2200
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:17 am UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Shivahn » Mon Dec 31, 2012 8:15 pm UTC

stevey_frac wrote:
Shivahn wrote:
Garm wrote:How about Smart Guns? Those would have prevented at least this latest shooting in Connecticut.


I am a huge fan of requiring more than trigger locks for guns, and the government heavily subsidizing safes and such. I think that's more feasible at the moment.


While I personally own a safe for my firearms, it was more out of convenience than safety. Trigger locks take time and tools to defeat, and safes are just as insecure.

With time and a bit of tools, you could cut through my safe, and take the guns. And with time and a bit of tools, you can drill a trigger lock out.

What's more interesting, is why didn't the guns Adam Lanza used have trigger locks on them, unless there has been new information released I am unaware of?


Well, it's harder to steal a safe than a gun with a trigger lock. That is my big thing, it wouldn't matter here, only in burglaries where people know they have a limited amount of time.

stevey_frac
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:27 pm UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby stevey_frac » Mon Dec 31, 2012 8:28 pm UTC

Shivahn wrote:
stevey_frac wrote:
Shivahn wrote:
Garm wrote:How about Smart Guns? Those would have prevented at least this latest shooting in Connecticut.


I am a huge fan of requiring more than trigger locks for guns, and the government heavily subsidizing safes and such. I think that's more feasible at the moment.


While I personally own a safe for my firearms, it was more out of convenience than safety. Trigger locks take time and tools to defeat, and safes are just as insecure.

With time and a bit of tools, you could cut through my safe, and take the guns. And with time and a bit of tools, you can drill a trigger lock out.

What's more interesting, is why didn't the guns Adam Lanza used have trigger locks on them, unless there has been new information released I am unaware of?


Well, it's harder to steal a safe than a gun with a trigger lock. That is my big thing, it wouldn't matter here, only in burglaries where people know they have a limited amount of time.


You'd think that, but you'd be wrong. My safe, like many others of it's type, is not bolted down, nor is there any legal requirement to bolt such things down. I can easily pick the whole thing up, and walk out the door with it. It's actually smaller and lighter than a many TV's that thieves steal all the time.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Dec 31, 2012 9:42 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
yurell wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Nobody give me any grief over enjoying shooting a bow at a target, I don't see why guns are any different. Both are Olympic sports, after all.


Try mowing down people with a bow; you'll find it considerably more difficult than with a modern firearm.


*shrug* Jack Churchill didn't, and that was in WW2, where they were basically all armed and shooting back.

Granted, you don't have the media constantly telling you how dangerous bows are, so nobody appears to even try these days, but if there's one thing that man had in spades, it was creativity.

You're bullshitting. A good archer takes years of practice, a dude with a gun takes weeks. That's why historical armies switched over to early guns even though 100 archers were better than 100 gunners.


Nah. Early firearms were invented in the 1100s. Bows were on the battlefield for literally hundreds of years after that. Now, modern guns vs modern arrows? Yes, the gun is *generally* easier to use...though not strictly better, as a bow also offers specific advantages.

However, this has gotten wildly off the original topic. Why is shooting an animal with a gun considered a legitimate use, and shooting a target with a bow is considered a legitimate use, but shooting a target with a gun is so often overlooked as one?

CorruptUser wrote:
Garm wrote:
How about Smart Guns? Those would have prevented at least this latest shooting in Connecticut.


Assuming it's not possible to disable the restriction without destroying the gun itself, it would actually be a good idea. The NRA will of course object, if not violently then loudly. But in such a world it'd be easy to blanketly imprison anyone with a non grandfathered dumb gun, as they must obviously be doing something illegal. I'm just nervous about the world with computer chips under the skin and RIDN codes on the back of the neck. I want a bit more respect than stripping naked and getting on the probulator.


In the first place, it is definitely possible to disable the restriction, given time. If it's your gun, and you want it off, you absolutely can. Smart guns are about accident reduction and similar purposes. They're not really anti-theft devices at their core(though I wouldn't be surprised if marketting departments overreached).

More importantly, smart guns are pretty rare and experimental. I'm all for further development in this area(In fact, I LOVE tech and guns combined, and am interested in purchasing such products when they become more available), but you don't mandate something at the point where a couple researchers are dabbling with it. Especially not when it's something someone's life might depend on.

Shivahn wrote:
Garm wrote:How about Smart Guns? Those would have prevented at least this latest shooting in Connecticut.


I am a huge fan of requiring more than trigger locks for guns, and the government heavily subsidizing safes and such. I think that's more feasible at the moment.


I've heard of various subsidy plans. Thing is, our government isn't doing so hot fiscally right now. That's probably a rough sell politically. While I admit I would personally appreciate inexpensive gun safes as it would benefit me(they're quite convenient and classy to store guns in), It's also probably not entirely fair to expect others to pay for my hobby. Owners are definitely responsible currently for storing guns safely...and that means different things in different situations. If you have children, making provision to keep the children from mucking about with them is obviously part of that.

Garm wrote:If you don't like RFID chips (don't blame you) then support other forms of Smart Gun technology. There's some company that's doing grip recognition. As for all the existing guns? I don't know what to do with them. I'm sure someone can figure something out. If the NRA weren't such douchey loudmouths I'd say that some sort of buyback program coupled with a private sector solution would be the way to go.


One company offering a product? A good start, but a bit early for mandating it. Leaving out the instant monopoly, with all the badness that implies, there's just not a lot of reliability there. And hell, they couldn't keep up with demand anyway.

Optional buyback programs are constitutional, and thus, the only real legislative hurdle here would be convincing the gov to part with the money. In practical hurdles, guns bought back are heavily dominated by old, cheap, and/or broken guns. In practice, they often subsidize gun dealers who want to dump stock they can't sell. So, I don't know if they're very successful in acheiving the end goal of reducing guns on the street. Certainly, they have not seemed to appreciably decrease guns owned thus far.

Mandatory buyback programs would almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional, as previous univeral confiscation schemes have been. It's really hard to square any reading of the second amendment with "we're taking all yer guns". So, legally, that's a big hurdle, as constitutional amendments have been historically rare.

CorruptUser wrote:I think at this point it's clear the NRA is less about protecting the rights of Americans and more about supporting the gun manufacturers.


I do think that's an element of this. The NRA sometimes is a bit slow to protect rights of gun owners when I feel they should be much more aggressive. For instance, in the landmark heller case, the NRA didn't actually get on board right away. They only support cases where they feel there's a good chance of winning, evidently, so they didn't jump on till they saw which way the wind was blowing. Good as a publicity strategy, I suppose, but I'd like to see them do better to protect your average gun owner.

However, they are at least somewhat useful, and I suppose they do have to contend with limited resources. I see them as useful, but capable of improvement. Certainly, don't hesitate to call them up and give them your opinion. They rely on keeping a couple million members happy, so the voice of the individual member, while small, definitely has pull in bulk.




Anyway, so, I went to the gun show this weekend. I was looking primarily for a Five Seven, but would have picked up other interesting components or ammo for target shooting, had I seen them. It was nuts. Like, black friday(though strangely, very polite) nuts. I had to park a quarter mile away from the convention center. Upon getting inside, there were huge, huge crowds, far more than normal, intent on buying everything that might be banned. I saw a single magazine being sold for $600. I saw ammunition being sold, at the cheapest, for almost a dollar a round. Normal, vanilla bulk AR ammo. And .223 too. 5.56 was just purely unavailable. It was before noon when I got there, and already an ammo sales shop was packing up due to lack of stock. I overheard a fellow asking a sold out shop owner when he'd next get ARs in. Shop owner said he didn't know, and frankly, he was getting 200 calls a day requesting to buy one, so there wasn't much point in checking back anytime soon. No five-seven(a fairly normal pistol) was available anywhere. I did manage to find two mags and one box of ammo from the last ammo dealer to have the caliber, but it ran me nearly $200. Ridiculous.

Stopped at Bass Pro Shop on the way home, figuring it can't be as bad in the stores. It was. There were 106 people in front of me in line to buy a gun. After the few hours wait, I determined that they had basically nothing in stock, they couldn't order guns at any price, couldn't say when they'd get any, and people were just buying whatever was left over. The shelves of handguns were basically empty, nothing even vaguely like an AR was left. Shelves of ammo were empty. Hell, even non gun things were being hit. The crossbows section nearby, the inexpensive rack(of the two) had only three of the usual 20+ left on it. Calling other firearms stores around confirmed that this was widespread, and across multiple states. Some stores simply closed down for lack of stock.

It was nothing even close to this prior to the original assault weapons ban. More worry this time since it happened once? More gun owners? More fear of harsher legislation? Not sure, but it's crazy out there. Even in the heart of liberal country, everyone is buying a gun. Strange.

stevey_frac
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:27 pm UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby stevey_frac » Mon Dec 31, 2012 11:12 pm UTC

Plus, smart tech would definitely take away from the appeal of my 110 year old double barrel shotgun. Still fires. External hammers you have to cock by hand. I still hunt pigeon with it occasionally. Barrels are still shiny, but not quite true any more.

Plus there's the fact that it has a great deal of sentimental value to me and my family, and a history that goes back generations. I don't want to see any glowing LED's on it. :(

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10500
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Dec 31, 2012 11:49 pm UTC

stevey_frac wrote:Plus, smart tech would definitely take away from the appeal of my 110 year old double barrel shotgun. Still fires. External hammers you have to cock by hand. I still hunt pigeon with it occasionally. Barrels are still shiny, but not quite true any more.

Plus there's the fact that it has a great deal of sentimental value to me and my family, and a history that goes back generations. I don't want to see any glowing LED's on it. :(


It'd probably be grandfathered in, so only guns manufactured or sold after a certain date would be required to have smart tech.

stevey_frac
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:27 pm UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby stevey_frac » Mon Dec 31, 2012 11:54 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
stevey_frac wrote:Plus, smart tech would definitely take away from the appeal of my 110 year old double barrel shotgun. Still fires. External hammers you have to cock by hand. I still hunt pigeon with it occasionally. Barrels are still shiny, but not quite true any more.

Plus there's the fact that it has a great deal of sentimental value to me and my family, and a history that goes back generations. I don't want to see any glowing LED's on it. :(


It'd probably be grandfathered in, so only guns manufactured or sold after a certain date would be required to have smart tech.


At which point, when this fails again as it is doomed to, we get people just like on this forum who say, 'WE HAVE TO DO IT AGAIN, BUT HARDER!'.

I hate people. They suck.

User avatar
Shivahn
Posts: 2200
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:17 am UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Shivahn » Tue Jan 01, 2013 1:29 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Shivahn wrote:
Garm wrote:How about Smart Guns? Those would have prevented at least this latest shooting in Connecticut.


I am a huge fan of requiring more than trigger locks for guns, and the government heavily subsidizing safes and such. I think that's more feasible at the moment.


I've heard of various subsidy plans. Thing is, our government isn't doing so hot fiscally right now. That's probably a rough sell politically. While I admit I would personally appreciate inexpensive gun safes as it would benefit me(they're quite convenient and classy to store guns in), It's also probably not entirely fair to expect others to pay for my hobby. Owners are definitely responsible currently for storing guns safely...and that means different things in different situations. If you have children, making provision to keep the children from mucking about with them is obviously part of that.

...

It was nothing even close to this prior to the original assault weapons ban. More worry this time since it happened once? More gun owners? More fear of harsher legislation? Not sure, but it's crazy out there. Even in the heart of liberal country, everyone is buying a gun. Strange.


I am not sure about how much a subsidy would end up costing. I don't think it's that rough a sell - it's pretty clearly frameable as a public health issue. And while I don't expect for others to pay for a hobby, I think it's reasonable to expect them to pay to keep it safe? I mean, I support subsidized medical care for motorcycle injuries and stuff. I don't feel this is that different. As long as the government is not like, pouring money down the gun safe hole, I really think safes should be cheaper. Putting a trigger lock on is a pain, so people don't, and that costs lives. A safe is where you store the gun - it's not really a pain at all. In the end I think having cheap safes would save tons of lives over trigger locks, not even because they're more secure, but because psychology is weird, and while it's a pain to put a lock through the gun, it's not a pain to put it into a box with a lock. I might be projecting though.

As to the last thing, it's probably fear of harsher legislation, knowing that it happened again, and a receptive mindset (there has been a lot of fearmongering recently about gun bans).

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jan 01, 2013 2:53 am UTC

stevey_frac wrote:Plus, smart tech would definitely take away from the appeal of my 110 year old double barrel shotgun. Still fires. External hammers you have to cock by hand. I still hunt pigeon with it occasionally. Barrels are still shiny, but not quite true any more.

Plus there's the fact that it has a great deal of sentimental value to me and my family, and a history that goes back generations. I don't want to see any glowing LED's on it. :(


I definitely don't support tossing out old guns for the simple reason that there's a lot of history there. Old shotguns aren't really my ball of wax, but they're a popular area for collectors. If I did get into collecting, I'd probably look into older pinguns and the early octagonal barreled lever guns. Something about that style just seems classic to me. Very much an area of personal preference, though, and I certainly wouldn't want to poo poo someone else's taste.

Shivahn wrote:I am not sure about how much a subsidy would end up costing. I don't think it's that rough a sell - it's pretty clearly frameable as a public health issue. And while I don't expect for others to pay for a hobby, I think it's reasonable to expect them to pay to keep it safe? I mean, I support subsidized medical care for motorcycle injuries and stuff. I don't feel this is that different. As long as the government is not like, pouring money down the gun safe hole, I really think safes should be cheaper. Putting a trigger lock on is a pain, so people don't, and that costs lives. A safe is where you store the gun - it's not really a pain at all. In the end I think having cheap safes would save tons of lives over trigger locks, not even because they're more secure, but because psychology is weird, and while it's a pain to put a lock through the gun, it's not a pain to put it into a box with a lock. I might be projecting though.

As to the last thing, it's probably fear of harsher legislation, knowing that it happened again, and a receptive mindset (there has been a lot of fearmongering recently about gun bans).


I suspect that framing a subsidy as a public health issue might alienate more people. There's significant factions that aren't fond of words like "subsidized health care". I know, I know, we've had medicare and such for ages, but still, certain things somehow become "issues", and linking up with them probably would complicate things.

As for cost, well, 47% of american homes have one or more gun in them. If we're going to establish a safe for each of them, it's gonna end up as a pretty significant cost. How much depends on the level of safe you're gonna buy, but any which way, it's gonna end up with about half of america on the take.

That said, trigger locks aren't necessarily that big of a pain. Some guns also come with integrated locks, which some people prefer. Me, I don't really care what security method you opt for, as long as you take reasonable precautions to avoid accidents. I don't know exactly if people prefer safes over triggers in general. I think I'd prefer a safe myself, but that's as much for convenience/nice place to store the guns rather than trigger locks(which I have and use now). Hell, I'd even accept that, say, if you're a single dude in the woods in alaska or wherever, not putting anything on the gun might be best. All situational, I suppose. I'm not sure there's a single solution that works best for everyone.

Oddly enough, I didn't note much in the way of fearmongering there. This DOES unfortunately happen from time to time, with sellers who presumably have poor sales urging things like "get x now, who knows if it'll be legal in a couple years", which, while not technically wrong, probably is overselling things. Now, it was as if it was just assumed that everyone already knew.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10274
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby addams » Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:32 am UTC

Brace wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJyoQtYrn4U

That is a man that has developed a great talent.

The people living in peaceful nations may have a difficult time understanding the soul of a coward. These men and women are frightened. Not all,but many....
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6802
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby sardia » Fri Jan 11, 2013 4:17 am UTC

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/us/po ... d=2&ref=us
The only thing of note is the hidden emphasis on magazine limits, and background checks. From the looks of it, it'll be called an assault rifle ban for the good PR, but it'll really be about the other two.

Did we ever come to a conclusion on magazine limits? I remember that trained soldiers could reload really fast, but I don't recall if it reloading reduces the death toll or not. This is also really targeted, since most crimes with guns don't need more than a normal magazine. Therefore, the most substantial effect would be the efficacy of the background checks. I know the Mexican police would appreciate anything that stops the flow of AR-15s to drug gangs.

PS Why hasn't the gun market dried up? It's not like guns are iphones, and there's a Steve Jobs telling you to buy the latest version of their gun... Right? Anyone?

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Jan 11, 2013 4:33 am UTC

Well, at least in theory, at some point, the reload time of a gun will put you at a disadvantage. A soldier who has a 30 round magazine will have three times less reloads than a guy with only a 10 round magazine.

On the other hand... http://defcad.org/ar-15-magazine/

The 3d printer weapons enthusiasts are hard at work at making printable magazines. While a whole gun can't be printed yet (or probably ever, because a barrel needs to be pretty damn tough), a medium-sized magazine is perhaps one of the simpler things that one can print. I'm also pretty sure that the old magazine limit law didn't really work very well in the past... let alone in the modern age where people are working on 3d printer technology.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Shivahn
Posts: 2200
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:17 am UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Shivahn » Fri Jan 11, 2013 4:47 am UTC

sardia wrote:Did we ever come to a conclusion on magazine limits? I remember that trained soldiers could reload really fast, but I don't recall if it reloading reduces the death toll or not. This is also really targeted, since most crimes with guns don't need more than a normal magazine. Therefore, the most substantial effect would be the efficacy of the background checks. I know the Mexican police would appreciate anything that stops the flow of AR-15s to drug gangs.

PS Why hasn't the gun market dried up? It's not like guns are iphones, and there's a Steve Jobs telling you to buy the latest version of their gun... Right? Anyone?

For the first: bigger magazines (past a point) are also jammier, so I'm not actually sure what would end up being superior. I live in California so I don't have any experience with that. Incidentally, I've heard that because the number one important thing for crime is to have a concealed weapon, criminals end up using smaller magazines anyway. I thought it was interesting, but don't think it's relevant.

As to the latter, I have no idea. Maybe because there are so many types that a single person could want a large number because each is pretty different? Like, instead of an iPhone there are a bunch of different apps and so even if you don't buy the same app twice you still have a lifetime worth of apps to collect.

Or maybe pokemon. I don't know.

User avatar
Eseell
Posts: 789
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:58 am UTC
Location: WA

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Eseell » Fri Jan 11, 2013 5:03 am UTC

sardia wrote:PS Why hasn't the gun market dried up? It's not like guns are iphones, and there's a Steve Jobs telling you to buy the latest version of their gun... Right? Anyone?

Oh no, gun manufacturers are always telling people to buy the latest version of their gun. They're all trying to out-awesome each other with weird features (a shotgun with two tube magazines? Yes, you can has! Even if it's pointless and heavy and jammy people will buy the hell out of it.) and ridiculous marketing. For some people, guns are like potato chips, you can't have just one. I personally have more guns than I and my close friends can wield at one time. Why? Because they're all different. Even my two 1911s are very different guns, despite having the same basic design. I have a gun for plinking and a gun for long distance target shooting and a gun for concealed carry and a gun for open carry and a gun for trap and a gun for skeet and a gun for home defense. . . and so on. You see where I'm going with this.

A lot of people don't realize this, but guns can be a really geeky hobby. AR15-style rifles are popular in part because they're nearly infinitely customizable. They're like LEGO guns. People build them from parts so that they contain exactly the features they want, and then they break them down and rebuild them with different features, or they buy another set of parts and accessories and build a new one or six. There's also the engineering involved in a thing that contains a small explosion inches from your head and propels a small projectile downrange at 500-4000 feet per second, and in making it do that accurately and repeatably.
"Math is hard work and it occupies your mind -- and it doesn't hurt to learn all you can of it, no matter what rank you are; everything of any importance is founded on mathematics." - Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Shivahn
Posts: 2200
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:17 am UTC

Re: 27 dead in Shooting at CT Elementary School

Postby Shivahn » Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:13 am UTC

Eseell wrote:Why? Because they're all different. Even my two 1911s are very different guns, despite having the same basic design. I have a gun for plinking and a gun for long distance target shooting and a gun for concealed carry and a gun for open carry and a gun for trap and a gun for skeet and a gun for home defense. . . and so on. You see where I'm going with this.

OCD runs amok with stuff like this.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 15 guests