"Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

For any and all other discussion, i.e., not relating to Star Wars or Star Trek or standards of evidence. A reminder: Don't spam, don't flame, and stay reasonable.
Cocytus
Jedi Knight
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:04 am

"Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by Cocytus » Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:28 am

We haven't had a good political thread in a while, so here:

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 ... enate-bill

I'm breathing a sigh of relief. Maybe now the absurdly exorbitant prices will begin to normalize.

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by Praeothmin » Wed Mar 20, 2013 1:00 pm

And once again we see the Cowboy mentality is as healthy as ever in the good ol' US of A... :)

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by mojo » Thu Mar 21, 2013 2:37 am

not universally.. :/

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by Praeothmin » Thu Mar 21, 2013 12:01 pm

You're right, it is only in majority in the people with influence... :(

I spoke with many customers in the US over the years, and they aren't the backwards gun-toting retards the world likes to paint the US gun owners to be like...
In fact, most of them agreed assault rifles should be banned, as no one needs one and should own one...
But they aren't the ones who can influence the Government, alas...

I've seen many discussions online about gun rights and ownership, and people even argued the fact that there were more assaults committed with hammers, knives and household items then guns, but these arguments always ignored one very important aspect:
I have the physical ability to run away from a maniac with a knife or a hammer, and if push comes to shove, I can actually block a knife or hammer attack, and can use normal objects like a stick, a rolled up magazine, anything, to defend myself against those weapons...
I have no fucking chance in hell of outrunning a bullet, or defending myself against one, which is why guns are so dangerous...
But this argument is always ignored when defending gun ownership, or arguing against more stringent gun laws...

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by sonofccn » Thu Mar 21, 2013 2:07 pm

Praeothmin wrote:I've seen many discussions online about gun rights and ownership, and people even argued the fact that there were more assaults committed with hammers, knives and household items then guns, but these arguments always ignored one very important aspect:
I have the physical ability to run away from a maniac with a knife or a hammer, and if push comes to shove, I can actually block a knife or hammer attack, and can use normal objects like a stick, a rolled up magazine, anything, to defend myself against those weapons...
Well, as a gun owner, I would argue the argument isn't that guns and a hammer have equivalent lethal capability, otherwise we'd expect the Army to unveil super combat hammers, but that in terms of lives taken "Assault Rifles" and rifles in general are not the principal cause. As shown herehere from 2007-2011 "Knives" "Blunt objects" and " Hands/feet" each consistently claimed more then all the rifle related homicides. Similarly so do handguns even through they are "inferior" to "Assault Rifles" at least to a certain degree and extent.

All of them are, in the end, tools. Dependent on the user for whether they do good or ill. Now one can make the argument that certain tools are too dangerous to be allowed in citizens' hands, that a hand gun makes it too easy, which is certainly a valid argument but one has to be honest about its goals and limitations. Removing all guns on Earth can't prevent things like the Bath School disaster from happening.

Now personally I think gun control is trying to treat a symptom not the disease, and punishing the law abiding for the crimes of others, that there was something wrong with the likes of Kehoe and Lanza. That something didn't click right in their minds and not understanding and combating that, as much as it is possible, makes everything else meaningless.

And this is before we get into the argument of practicality of gun law enforcement which is another can of worms.

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by Praeothmin » Thu Mar 21, 2013 3:07 pm

Complete freedom does not help either...
I can understand that you may like guns, and shooting them, but I believe more stringent gun control laws do help in alleviate violent crimes...
This is an argument we had a few months back over at DITL:
lets look at something a bit more telling the intentional homicide rate per 100,000 people as compiled by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime.

lets look at a few European states that do allow gun ownership. Norway, where a few extremely high powered handguns and all automatic weapons are outlawed has as murder rate of 0.6. Switzerland where you're not only allowed to own an automatic weapon but required to by law has a rate of 0.7. Finland has a system not unlike what I've seen proposed by many in the gun control lobby but it's murder rate is 2.2. The UK were the enlightened people live has a murder rate of... hmm, that's odd, 1.2. Twice that of Norway and 70% higher than gun crazy Switzerland. Could it be that guns aren't the problem? Murderous assholes are?
My response was:
Thanks, this was enlightening...
Although how many of these actual crimes happened against law-abiding citizens compared to say, gang/drug related violence?
How many of those deaths could have been prevented with stricter gun control?
You will notice that many countries with an average around or below 2, like Australia (1.0), China (1.0), Japan (0.4), Norway (0.6), the UK (1.2), Canada (1.6), Germany (0. 8), Italy (0.9) have strict gun ownership laws, with the exceptions of Switzerland...
It tends to show that, in the majority of the countries, having more restrictive gun laws do help...
And I agree, gun control won't magically stop people from killing each other, but it will make it more difficult, and will most certainly help lower the amount of mass killings like we've seen happen...
But will it stop them entirely?
Of course not, but it will help in reducing the number of casualties in those events...

Cocytus
Jedi Knight
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:04 am

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by Cocytus » Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:07 am

Praeothmin wrote:And once again we see the Cowboy mentality is as healthy as ever in the good ol' US of A... :)
Con-sarnit boyyyy, I dun thought I told ye to keep yer mitts offa my propitty.
Praeothmin wrote:I've seen many discussions online about gun rights and ownership, and people even argued the fact that there were more assaults committed with hammers, knives and household items then guns, but these arguments always ignored one very important aspect:
I have the physical ability to run away from a maniac with a knife or a hammer, and if push comes to shove, I can actually block a knife or hammer attack, and can use normal objects like a stick, a rolled up magazine, anything, to defend myself against those weapons...
I suppose this just boils down to the fight or flight response. My question would be why not shoot back? Which is, of course, the conclusion many gun owners have drawn.
Praeothmin wrote:I spoke with many customers in the US over the years, and they aren't the backwards gun-toting retards the world likes to paint the US gun owners to be like...
In fact, most of them agreed assault rifles should be banned, as no one needs one and should own one...
But they aren't the ones who can influence the Government, alas...
Wait, you mean Canadians don't have just one road? I saw that on a South Park once. ;)

Depending on whom you ask, various poll numbers show levels of support for certain bans.

Now, having said that, and realizing that I may prejudice my case, I must say that "the will of the people" means jack shit to me in most cases. My primary concern is the Constitution and its defense, which has been served by the removal of this ban. The Supreme Court, in affirming the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right (like the rest of them) allowed for the continued regulation of firearms. The Court's opinion holds that the Second Amendment protects arms "in common use at the time," which certainly applies to so-called "assault weapons."

What "the will of the people" demands is a fickle, fleeting thing, easily influenced by fear or sensationalism, which is why we have a system of checks and balances on that will in the form of the Supreme Court. A panel of nine unelected "elitists," who serve for life or until they choose not to, who can overturn the laws of Congress supposedly passed in response to "the will of the people." The only recourse the people have in overruling the Supreme Court is a Constitutional Amendment which, while possible de jure is de facto impossible given the divisions within the country. Personally I'm quite happy SCOTUS has ruled that the Second Amendment does, in fact, mean what it says.

As I've had this argument about ten million times, I can go through most of the talking points.

1) This law is about protecting lives, and we have to stop this from ever happening again.

I don't believe that such massacres are merely "the cost of freedom," but if we are to attempt to prevent such disasters, where does the first line of defense fall? The left's answer is to forbid anyone from making the choice to buy certain firearms in the first place, a position I disagree with. Many on the left reacted with amazement at the suggestion that schools should have armed guards. Even if you could magically remove every privately owned firearm, as the Bath Massacre shows dedicated madmen will find ways to harm people. Such being the case, why wouldn't armed security at schools be a given? The Newtown shooting has caused a serious tidal wave within the architectural community on the subject of school design, with a particular focus on safety subcontractors and all the various means they have of controlling the environment. Even if it were possible to remove all private weapons, why wouldn't the left be in favor of armed security. That doesn't mean the school will become a gulag (the slippery slope fallacy) it merely means we accept the reality that regulations won't stop every massacre. And as for funding it, use the money from a tax on high-capacity magazines or assault rifle sales.

So, if the point is to save lives, we should address every conceivable means by which that might be accomplished WHILE AT THE SAME TIME ensuring that Constitutional liberties are protected.

I'm in favor of universal background checks, since I can sail through one with ease. In my own experience, it isn't hard to, you know, NOT be a criminal.

As far as registration and insurance go, I'm a little iffier. The left often tries to draw an analogy with between guns and cars. I'm suspicious of registration as a matter of principle, since it could be a prelude to confiscation. That, of course, is another instance of slippery slope in action, which I freely admit to. If we could ensure that confiscation would never result from a registration system, I be okay with it. We'd also have to ensure that some jackass newspaper doesn't try to make us unwelcome in our own communities, or broadcast to criminals where to get guns. As far as insurance, it would need to be carefully tailored to a real examination of the threats posed. Getting in a car accident can make your insurance premiums go up. Having a firearm stolen and used in a crime can already bring criminal charges down on you, so I'm not sure what insurance would achieve in that case. I'm suspicious of it because it would be easy for the left to use it in an attempt to make private firearms ownership prohibitively expensive. As long as saving lives is the real goal (with the funds given to some sort of charity for victims or research or something) then I'd be okay with it. But as long as anyone behind it harbored the intention, however secret, of attempting to damage our constitutionally protected liberties, I have problems.

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." Dianne Feinstein, 1995.

That is why I will never trust anything she says regarding guns. That is why I don't trust her "it's for the children" bullshit. I know what her real goal is, and anything with her name on it is anathema to me.

2) Guns are designed to kill.

Gun owners will typically point to the fact that motor vehicle fatalities account for more deaths than firearms (and the firearms figure typically includes suicides). The left's standard response is the above statement. Cars aren't designed to kill. Guns are. To which I say "so what?" It's irrelevant to the previous point of saving lives. If you're concerned about saving lives in general, why aren't there are as many if not more new restrictions being proposed on cars? "Guns are designed to kill" is irrelevant to the point that, irrespective of design, cars kill more people.

This isn't a problem for those whose point is to reduce GUN violence specifically, but there's a larger issue here. The mistake many make is the tacit equation of "kill" with "murder." Yes, guns kill. That's their primary purpose, be it deer or rodents or people. But a particular brand of pacifism seems to want to equate kill with murder, which is simply fallacious. I can kill someone without murdering them, which I why I have guns. Lawful self-defense is part of the reason civilians can own guns. Some people don't want to own guns. They don't trust them or don't trust themselves with them, and that's fine by me. But I do, and will continue to do so.

One last point on this is the existence of many "duty to retreat" laws. This is merely a function of where I happen to fall which, frankly, I no longer have any idea of when it comes to classical left-right spectra. But I'm not going to try to "talk down" an intruder, nor will I retreat and allow him unimpeded access to my stuff. Yes, my property matters more to me than his life. If you want to call me a monster for that, go right ahead.

3) Assault weapons are designed for military use. No civilian needs them.

I'm always wary of government telling me what I need. I'm not against it universally. I would consider the merits after a thorough examination of the issues, but I don't believe most gun control advocates have done that, which I can readily support by simply reading some of their material and proposals. I demand, as I would hope any intelligent citizen would, that those who seek to legislate have a thorough knowledge of what they're trying to legislate on. Which brings me to the main point. "Assault weapon" is a nebulous definition. Why do certain features on a weapon, which make it no more or less effective, somehow make it more dangerous? And why the focus on so-called military features?

I would like people to explain why a muzzle brake, barrel shroud, flash suppressor, collapsible stock, picatinny rail, forward grip or any other feature make the weapon any more dangerous? People like Dianne Feinstien, who from pictures is seen to practice poor, which is to say no trigger discipline, or Caroline McCarthy, who couldn't tell an interviewer what a barrel shroud was despite wanting them banned. This is why I can't condone these bans. It isn't just that I view it as a civil liberties issue instead of the public health view the liberals espouse. It's that the left seems entirely unwilling to educate itself about what it hopes to ban. As far as they're concerned, they're doing The Right Thing, facts and definitions be damned. And it is that refusal that keeps me from having any real agreement with them. Feinstein admitted she views us as "the enemy." Thanks, bitch. I feel real inclined to entertain any viewpoint you have now. And these are the same people who would preach about the need for "solidarity" or ask why we can't "compromise." There's compromise, and there's capitulation. It's the latter Feinstein wants from us.

Lastly, as I've had this discussion with my FBI agent brother in law, but there seems to be a certain group that views gun ownership in general, and assault weapons ownership in particular, as something of a pathology. It's as if being military style provokes some sort of Rambo Syndrome in people. "I have a scary black rifle, look how badass I am." I'm not sure what to think of that. I've never felt the desire to kill people when holding any weapon. I do want to get my hands on an original Russian Dragunov SVD some day, but that's because I love the design, not because I'll feel "cool" holding it. I sold off my Desert Eagle because it's basically a money sink. I admired the engineering, even if it was in service of something totally impractical.

4) It worked in Europe.

Where exactly? We've been over Switzerland already. And we've been over the UK, which has a high violent crime rate despite its draconian weapons laws, many of which serve to punish otherwise law abiding citizens. Given that the left cannot claim that gun control reduces gun violence universally, what is the recourse? Enact it and hope for the best result? Or should we conduct further study. Why is Switzerland the way it is? Why is the UK the way it is? What's going on there socially? Economically? Culturally? And what part of that might be applicable here? I don't know. This is one place I disagree with the NRA. We should be allowed to study the firearms issue in more detail. It might give us a way to better protect law abiding citizens and capture or deter criminals. No one ever suffered from a surfeit of information as far as I'm concerned, so study away.

5) No one needs magazines with 100 rounds.

That's probably true. People will still want them, and I'm okay with wanting them as long as they pay for them. I'd be okay with a tax on high-capacity magazines as long as it wasn't, as stated before, intended to make them unaffordable. Hell, I believe in taxing single people who own SUVs. There's no real need to own such a vehicle without 3 kids to cart around in it. Bloomberg's pitiful soda ban should be turned into some sort of tax. Don't want to pay it? Exercise some goddamn calorie control. But you want it, and its fine to want things. All I would ask is that you recognize the societal effects those things can have. If that's ALL I think a gun-control type is asking of me, I'll entertain their suggestions. But I don't want to outright ban people from purchasing things. Last time I was at a gun show, the factory 30-round mags for my Beretta 92 were going for $90 dollars. Pretty outrageous for a magazine, but I'd pony up if I really wanted one. I bought some cheapos instead. The factory 15 ones are probably all I'll ever really need, and I have plenty of those.

6) Don't you care about kids? You'd understand if you had children.

I don't have children, and I'm always suspicious of people who claim to be doing it "for the children." To me its the clarion call of a position that's probably draconian and couldn't be otherwise supported without the oldest and simplest emotional appeal. I'm willing to endure laws which will have a definite impact on the safety of children, but again I fail to see how an assault weapons ban would accomplish that. And as for "understanding" a great many parents are gun owners themselves, including my father when he raised me. They own them to protect their children, so I fail to see what "understanding" would alter my viewpoint. Hell, if I had children I might buy more guns.

I'm not averse to regulation. But I fail to see how Feinstein et alia, for whom the issue is so fraught with emotion and devoid of substantial study, can claim their darling legislation is "sensible," even if the reason there's no substantial study is the NRA's fault. Beat them at that first. Then, once you have the evidence you need, you can show me how what I own should be further regulated.

So, in summation:

Universal Background Checks? Yes, absolutely. Every point of sale excepting transfers within a household. Automatic sharing of pertinent information across all state lines. Complete records available. Upon any adult seeking to purchase a weapon for the first time, unseal any juvenile records for potential dangers.

Registration? Possibly yes, provided careful protections for gun owners. No provisions for confiscation EVER. No police doing what was done in New Orleans after Katrina EVER.

Insurance? Maybe. Again, careful protections for lawful gun owners. Premium bumps for accidental discharge? Hell yes. Proper clearing is not difficult, and if done often enough becomes second nature. Premium bump for stolen weapon? Absolutely. Securing is not difficult. I'd be in favor of that in place of criminal negligence charges, since the money could be used for some constructive purpose.

Allowing greater study? Knock yourselves out. The NRA should get the hell out of the way there.

Ban military style features? No.

Ban high capacity magazines? No.

Regulate high capacity magazines, possibly imposing a waiting period or tax of some sort? Depends. If it's not exorbitant I'd be okay with it.

Armed security for schools? I can't believe anyone could be against this, even if we could magically teleport every weapon into space. It's just common sense. It should be no different than having crossing guards (who protect kids from the deadly cars which kill more people than guns, after all.) Hell, they'd be better than crossing guards. A guard can't stop a lunatic in a speeding car (I'm talking physics here. He literally can't stop the car with his body. He'll be tossed aside like a ragdoll). An armed guard can, on the other hand, shoot and kill an armed intruder. Of course, the left will raise issues like proper target identification and shooting something other than the target. This is why we have training, and why there are specialized cartridges designed to stay in just one person.

Biometric trigger locks? Can't come fast enough. I'll shell out some tax money to pay for those. I want a Lawgiver 2 that will only fire for me. I can't see how gun-rights advocates could be against that, as long as it wasn't used in an attempt to make firearms prohibitively expensive.

Expanded mental health research? Go for it. Expand counselors at schools. Find as many of these people as you can before they go off.

I'm not sure how much, if any, of the above would actually be useful in stopping gun violence. Neither is anyone else. The following is not directed at any specific person, but is stated in general. Don't suggest that I'm "okay with dead kids" because I don't want a piece of legislation that will probably do fuck all to save kids. And don't ask me "how many more bodies will it take," since it's already established that the only real concern of many gun-control advocates who vomit up this shopworn cliche are children who die from guns specifically. I don't see you burning a candle for all the poor kids dying of AIDS in Africa, so don't try to set yourself up as morally superior to me.

Just my thoughts.

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by Praeothmin » Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:06 pm

So to recap your incredibly long reply:
-You are FOR greater regulations, but AGAINST straight out bans...

I agree with you about the regulations, but I'll never agree with not banning assault rifles...
Such fire power should always be ONLY in the hands of Police forces and the Army...

Armed guards at every school?
No!
We don't have them here, and don't need them...
I don't want to turn our schools into armed institutions...
And seriously, how many guards do you want to put there?
4, 5, because 1 definitely won't do...
And if anyone can have assault rifles, then even two guards wouldn't be much deterrent, IMO...
We've seen Brinks trucks get robbed even though they had 3 armed guards, one with a shotgun, because the bad guys had Assault Rifles, their firepower being way more impressive than the guards'...
So, what do we do, arm our school guards with MP5s?
What message is that sending to our kids?

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by sonofccn » Fri Mar 22, 2013 2:35 pm

Praeothmin wrote:Complete freedom does not help either...
True. Life is trade offs. But not compromise. Never compromise. Even in the face of Armageddon! :)
Praeothmin wrote:I can understand that you may like guns, and shooting them
Well its more than merely a personal preference. The Founders included it for a reason, one I feel is still very relevant and important today.
Praeothmin wrote:but I believe more stringent gun control laws do help in alleviate violent crimes...
I can respect that but the incongruent data points such as Switzerland or Russia, stricter gun control laws IIRC than the US but a far higher rating, would suggest other factors may be the culprit. One would need to compare crime and murder rates both before and after adding of gun laws within the same country in order to test your hypothesis. Ie did the UK have more or less crime before it did X.
Praeothmin wrote:but I'll never agree with not banning assault rifles...
Such fire power should always be ONLY in the hands of Police forces and the Army...
As you are entitled to.

Conversely accepting that humanity is flawed and that power derives from force or the threat thereof I would submit that an armed populace is the difference between citizens delegating certain authorities to a central government and subjects who are ruled by one. That, however imperfectly, the ability to resist is a check against intrusive power both foreign and domestic. To that I would argue of the need of personal responsibility the same as with any tool and vigilance. And, if you'll forgive me for sounding like some contrite fundie, perhaps a reflection on our society and why it seems to coming apart at times.
Praeothmin wrote:What message is that sending to our kids?
Peace through superior firepower of course. ;)

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:41 pm

I had pity for all the idiots who brought their guns back, because of the OMG horror of the massacre. Emotional stupid reaction for the feeble minded.
Perhaps someone needed to remind them that criminals, on the other hand, keep their guns, and these guns really include fully automatics.
Guns are nowhere the problem. In fact they may even soon become the only real solution for some US citizens. :p

Lucky
Jedi Master
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by Lucky » Sun Mar 24, 2013 4:41 am

Cocytus wrote: We haven't had a good political thread in a while, so here:

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 ... enate-bill

I'm breathing a sigh of relief. Maybe now the absurdly exorbitant prices will begin to normalize.
How does one define assault weapon? Cosmetic features do not seem to be a good way to define a class of weapons, and yet I see gun control laws that seem to do just that. Aren't shotguns the best gun you can get for taking out soft targets like unarmored humans?

How does one define High Capacity Magazine?

Why does magazine size matter? I would think that weight to capacity would matter more then capacity. Weight is what matters when it comes to how much ammunition a human can carry.

Lucky
Jedi Master
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by Lucky » Sun Mar 24, 2013 4:44 am

Praeothmin wrote: And once again we see the Cowboy mentality is as healthy as ever in the good ol' US of A... :)
Thank you for showing you lack of understanding of the problem. I've seen far too many moronic gun control laws that care more what the gun looks like then what it can do be passed. Take a look at what those laws are claiming to be attempting to stop: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook ... estigation Now tell me how any laws could stop that. The strangest thing is that he left the combat shotgun in the car for some reason.

I'd rather have laws that regulate the weapons most likely to be used in crimes instead of targeting law abiding citizens.

The reason for the second amendment was so the citizens could revolt against the government should the need arise, and no amount of laws will stop a mentally ill person planing and carrying out a murder.

In the last mass murder, 23 kindergarteners were killed when the perpetrator murdered their teacher(his mother), stole her legally owned guns, drove across town, killed anyone who got in his way, and then killed the kids.

As things stand there are already a number of gun control laws on the books, but no laws would have stopped this event, and Guns were just a convenient tool. Bombs or poison for example could have been used instead.

There was a mass murder in China were a guy killed something like 20 children with a knife as I recall. Should we ban knives? I can more easily purchase a knife then a gun after all, and knives are made for nothing but cutting, and have fewer safety features then guns.

This is a public health problem rather then a gun problem. People need to change the way they view mental health. It is just as important as physical health.

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by mojo » Sun Mar 24, 2013 4:55 am

i am of two minds regarding armed guards in schools. i think arming teachers, which was actually seriously discussed here following the last school shooting, is borderline retarded. the amount of training it would take to make that worthwhile is so large that it would almost make more sense to take cops and teach them to TEACH, rather than take teachers and teach them to SHOOT. it doesn't help that most of the teachers i had back in high school would be certain to do more damage than good. i seriously believe that, if teachers were armed, the next school shooting would have at least twice as many deaths, although it would probably look hilarious to see 70 year old blue-hairs spraying the room with hot lead.
security guards, even those with gun certification, should not be carrying in schools. i have done the security guard thing many, many times and i know the people who would be walking around our school hallways with guns. YOU DON'T WANT THAT. the vast majority of security guards are not people like me, who simply wanted to have a job which allows you to sit and read on the clock. they're FAILED POLICE OFFICERS. they're a bunch of dicks who LIVE for the sad little bit of authority they receive as a guard, and they lord it over truck drivers and janitors because they can. imagine these jackasses dealing with teenagers (who i understand may have some difficulty dealing with INTELLIGENT people in positions of authority) and doing it with FUCKING GUNS. this is madness.
the only way this works, imo, is with actual police officers. even then, there are going to be problems between officers and teenagers. this way, though, the kids probably get to keep living.

as unpopular an opinion as it is, i actually would be for a total ban on firearms in the usa.

Cocytus
Jedi Knight
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:04 am

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by Cocytus » Sun Mar 24, 2013 7:15 am

Praeothmin wrote:Such fire power should always be ONLY in the hands of Police forces and the Army...
Yes, because as people like Nidal Malik Hasan and Christopher Dorner prove, you can ALWAYS trust the police and the army, right?

And how are you defining firepower? Muzzle velocity? Caliber? Rate of fire? What impact do any of the arbitrary "military style" features that make a gun an "assault weapon" have on those? A forward pistol grip does not affect the caliber or rate of fire of the weapon. Neither does a barrel shroud, or a flash suppressor, or a muzzle brake, or a bayonet lug, or a collapsible stock, or a threaded barrel. A high-capacity magazine does affect how much lead the weapon has available, so I'm not averse to regulating that.

If you want to talk firepower, which is a function of how quickly the weapon sends lead downrange, and what type of lead it is, the military and the police have access to fully automatic weapons. They already comfortably outgun the citizenry. Here in the US, I could get a fully automatic weapon if I really really wanted one. The paperwork, not to mention the cost (if you've ever seen the Class III table at a gun show) make it not worth my time.
Praeothmin wrote:Armed guards at every school?
No!
We don't have them here, and don't need them...
I don't want to turn our schools into armed institutions...
And seriously, how many guards do you want to put there?
4, 5, because 1 definitely won't do...
And if anyone can have assault rifles, then even two guards wouldn't be much deterrent, IMO...
We've seen Brinks trucks get robbed even though they had 3 armed guards, one with a shotgun, because the bad guys had Assault Rifles, their firepower being way more impressive than the guards'...
So, what do we do, arm our school guards with MP5s?
What message is that sending to our kids?
The H&K MP5 is a selective-fire 9mm (most models) submachine gun. In semi-auto mode it would have substantially less firepower than a .223 semiautomatic rifle. And if you're talking full auto, giving fully automatic weapons to guards would be incredibly irresponsible in my opinion, regardless of venue. It's just too much lead to account for.

As for the message we're sending our children? You yourself articulated it. New laws won't stop every massacre, so employing dedicated security personnel means we accept that reality. Hell, Biden himself admitted there would probably be no impact on crime in general or the possibility of mass shootings in particular.

I often hear liberals say that "even if the gun ban saves just one life, it will be worth it."

Even if armed security saves just one life, won't it be worth it?
Lucky wrote:There was a mass murder in China were a guy killed something like 20 children with a knife as I recall. Should we ban knives? I can more easily purchase a knife then a gun after all, and knives are made for nothing but cutting, and have fewer safety features then guns.
He injured 20 children with a knife. None of them died. What the gun-control crowd draws from this is that guns make it easier to kill people than knives, which is absolutely true. What the gun-rights crowd draws from this is that no law can deter crazy, which is also absolutely true.

Lucky
Jedi Master
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: "Assault" weapons ban bites the dust.

Post by Lucky » Sun Mar 24, 2013 9:09 am

mojo wrote:i am of two minds regarding armed guards in schools. i think arming teachers, which was actually seriously discussed here following the last school shooting, is borderline retarded. the amount of training it would take to make that worthwhile is so large that it would almost make more sense to take cops and teach them to TEACH, rather than take teachers and teach them to SHOOT. it doesn't help that most of the teachers i had back in high school would be certain to do more damage than good. i seriously believe that, if teachers were armed, the next school shooting would have at least twice as many deaths, although it would probably look hilarious to see 70 year old blue-hairs spraying the room with hot lead.
security guards, even those with gun certification, should not be carrying in schools. i have done the security guard thing many, many times and i know the people who would be walking around our school hallways with guns. YOU DON'T WANT THAT. the vast majority of security guards are not people like me, who simply wanted to have a job which allows you to sit and read on the clock. they're FAILED POLICE OFFICERS. they're a bunch of dicks who LIVE for the sad little bit of authority they receive as a guard, and they lord it over truck drivers and janitors because they can. imagine these jackasses dealing with teenagers (who i understand may have some difficulty dealing with INTELLIGENT people in positions of authority) and doing it with FUCKING GUNS. this is madness.
the only way this works, imo, is with actual police officers. even then, there are going to be problems between officers and teenagers. this way, though, the kids probably get to keep living.

as unpopular an opinion as it is, i actually would be for a total ban on firearms in the usa.
Armed guards would be a rather useful thing to have at school as sad as that sounds. I remember a few times the teacher would have wanted someone trained to restrain someone physically when I was in grade school, and with rises in class sizes things have likely gotten worse.

It honestly makes sense to have guards because you can't stop the random lone crazy that has popped up every now and then.

Post Reply