Dylann Roof: The Second Amendment Strikes Again

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We had a few problem with live ammo from WW1 and WW2 in the region, thankfully in my parents garden it was only bullets, no bombs or large caliber.

We wouldn't consider firing those, however. I hope.

Our neighbor neutralized the WW2 bullet rounds we found in our garden/ground/wall also for safety before disposal. He did not tell us how he did it though, only that despite the decades in the soil some rare one were still "live".

The "live" ones are the ones where the powder hasn't been degraded by water or such. If you avoid banging them around you can deal with them without any serious drama. TNT, on the other hand...

The family housing area of the base I was on in Sicily was built over a German ammo dump that some SAS berk had blown up in preparation for Operation Husky. We were finding shells up to 40mm as late of 1975, don't know about dates after that, but it seems likely they'll still be turning up now and then.

 

[Lothian]

I really don't get the big deal with this.

Given the popualtion in America, the proportion of society that are likely to go on a killing spree and the easy access to guns, you are going to have 3-4 events like this each year.

Just like allowing cars will result in car accidents, allowing widespead gun ownership will result in mass shootings. Mass killings, accidental family killings etc is simply the price everyone has to pay for the 'benefit' of allowing people to own guns.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I really don't get the big deal with this.

Given the popualtion in America, the proportion of society that are likely to go on a killing spree and the easy access to guns, you are going to have 3-4 events like this each year.

Just like allowing cars will result in car accidents, allowing widespead gun ownership will result in mass shootings. Mass killings, accidental family killings etc is simply the price everyone has to pay for the 'benefit' of allowing people to own guns.

Please pay my share for me. I'll owe you.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I really don't get the big deal with this.

Given the popualtion in America, the proportion of society that are likely to go on a killing spree and the easy access to guns, you are going to have 3-4 events like this each year.

Just like allowing cars will result in car accidents, allowing widespead gun ownership will result in mass shootings. Mass killings, accidental family killings etc is simply the price everyone has to pay for the 'benefit' of allowing people to own guns.

And the police shooting rather a lot of innocent people is the price we pay for them standing between us and those who would tear us down. But far better to kill an innocent person than let the thin blue line take any risks.

 

[Ranb]

Our neighbor neutralized the WW2 bullet rounds we found in our garden/ground/wall also for safety before disposal. He did not tell us how he did it though, only that despite the decades in the soil some rare one were still "live". ETA: on the plus side we got to keep the now empty cartridge and the bullet as souvenir.

Sounds like he simply pulled the bullet out and dumped the powder if the brass case was still intact. There are collets that are designed for the reloader to pull bullets from cases. I use my reloading press and a pair of pliers if I don't care about the projectile. I also have a kinetic puller if I need to keep the bullet intact. Throwing the live cartridge into a trashcan fire will also probably contain the brass fragments that fly away with little (relatively) energy; will be loud though.

Disposing of the powder alone can be as simple as fertilizing your lawn with it or throwing it into a small fire where it will burn harmlessly, as long as you are a few feet away.

Ranb

 

[Bogative]

Surprised the NRA hasn't come out with the violent video games excuse yet.

That would be absurd. Let's blame a flag instead.

 

[Crossbow]

If gun laws cannot possibly change these kind of outcomes, then why is it that other countries have so few events like this compared to the US? In the UK it's possible to gain ownership of a gun, despite the laws... yet this kind of thing is vanishingly rare.

Is it just that there's something in American culture that makes some individuals determined to shoot lots of people?

I often wonder if there is something wrong with American culture as well when it comes to gun issues.

There are other countries which have similar rates of American gun ownership (i.e., Canada) and these other countries have far less gun violence. At the same time, there are numerous Americans which one cannot even have a casual conversation about gun control issues without those people getting incredibly defensive and irrational.

 

[bit_pattern]

And lastly, why do you want poor women under threat of domestic violence to be unable to defend themselves? Because that's what a waiting period does: it renders them defenseless.

Oh, lawd, not this **** again.

Women in a household with a gun are at a far greater risk of domestic homicide that those without.

http://smartgunlaws.org/domestic-violence-firearms-policy-summary/

Guns pose a particular threat in the hands of domestic abusers.New-DV-Gif1
Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a firearm.2
Domestic violence assaults involving a gun are 12 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons or bodily force.3
More than two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse homicide victims between 1980 and 2008 were killed with firearms.4
In 2011, nearly two-thirds of women killed with guns were killed by their intimate partners.5

<snip>

The impact of guns in domestic violence situations is not limited to homicides. A 2004 survey of female domestic violence shelter residents in California found that more than one third (36.7%) reported having been threatened or harmed with a firearm.7 In nearly two thirds (64.5%) of the households that contained a gun, the intimate partner had used the firearm against the victim, usually threatening to shoot or kill her.8

Mindlessly repeating a confected trope, no matter how many times it is debunked, does not make it true.

 

[Ron Swanson]

Im not sure this has been mentioned.

BUT it seems the GOAL of firearm control advocates is to reduce the frequency at which people with LEGALY owned firearms commit crimes using them.

 

[bit_pattern]

But most defensive gun uses only require the display of the gun, not actually firing it.

Kind of like how the domestically violent use of guns only requires the display of the gun, not actually firing it.

I want them to be able to protect themselves. Why don't you?

Because facts.

 

[bit_pattern]

Because if we kill off all the poor women, only the wealthy will remain. And a wealthy society is generally a less violent society.

This post gets the official Ayn Rand Seal of Approval

 

[Ziggurat]

Kind of like how the domestically violent use of guns only requires the display of the gun, not actually firing it.

Exactly not like that. First, very little domestic violence is committed with guns. Secondly, the difference between offensive violence and defensive violence is rather fundamental, and it makes a big difference to how the threat of each is used as well.

Because facts.

And yet, you don't offer any.

Perhaps you mean something different by "facts" than what everyone else means by "facts".

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh, lawd, not this **** again.

That's what I say every time someone brings up gun control in response to the actions of a lunatic.

Women in a household with a gun are at a far greater risk of domestic homicide that those without.

"Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a firearm."

And what are the odds if the abused owns a firearm?

Mindlessly repeating a confected trope, no matter how many times it is debunked, does not make it true.

That's funny, considering you just mindlessly repeated a meme (not a trope) which doesn't actually address my claim.

 

[Lothian]

very little domestic violence is committed with guns.

Draw your own domestic violence / gun conclusions from the following:-

Over the past 25 years, more intimate partner homicides in the U.S. have been committed with guns than with all other weapons combined

The presence of a gun in domestic violence situations increases the risk of
homicide for women by 500 percent

In states that require a background check for every handgun sale, 38 percent
fewer women are shot to death by intimate partners.

More than half (54%) of women murdered with guns in the U.S. in 2011 were
killed by intimate partners or family members.

Of the women murdered with guns in 2011 where the relationship to the offender was known, 70% were shot to death by a current or former intimate partner.

More than half (57%) of mass shootings involve domestic violence

source

 

[bit_pattern]

Exactly not like that. First, very little domestic violence is committed with guns.

That's either a mistake or a lie. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you missed my preceding post and chalk it up as a mistake.

Secondly, the difference between offensive violence and defensive violence is rather fundamental, and it makes a big difference to how the threat of each is used as well.

Do you have *any* evidence that gun ownership reduces incidences of domestic violence, or is it all just feelpionions?

And yet, you don't offer any.

Perhaps you mean something different by "facts" than what everyone else means by "facts".

Right. I get it. Your unsubstantiated assertions are FACTS but my sourced and referenced statistics are "facts". I see how this game is played.

 

[bit_pattern]

And what are the odds if the abused owns a firearm?

Well since you're the one making the claim that guns protect the abused, the onus is on you to provide said evidence. Please, I'd be very interested to see something other than feelpinions from you on this issue.

 

[LTC8K6]

In states that require a background check for every handgun sale, 38 percent fewer women are shot to death by intimate partners.

What state doesn't require a federal background check for every handgun sale?

 

[Ziggurat]

Draw your own domestic violence / gun conclusions from the following:-

Over the past 25 years, more intimate partner homicides in the U.S. have been committed with guns than with all other weapons combined

Not all domestic violence is homicide.

The presence of a gun in domestic violence situations increases the risk of
homicide for women by 500 percent

I note again the conflation of gun ownership by the abuser with gun ownership by the victim.

In states that require a background check for every handgun sale, 38 percent
fewer women are shot to death by intimate partners.

We aren't debating background checks.

More than half (54%) of women murdered with guns in the U.S. in 2011 were
killed by intimate partners or family members.

And how many of them were able to protect themselves with a gun?

Of the women murdered with guns in 2011 where the relationship to the offender was known, 70% were shot to death by a current or former intimate partner.

Which suggests that women at high risk are likely to know that they are at high risk, and should be able to make the choice to defend themselves.

More than half (57%) of mass shootings involve domestic violence

All the more reason to allow potential victims to protect themselves, because they may save other lives as well.

 

[Cleon]

What state doesn't require a federal background check for every handgun sale?

Georgia, for one. You only need a background check if you buy from an FFL dealer; you can buy a handgun off someone you contact on armslist.com and not so much have to show ID.

 

[bit_pattern]

So no facts? Just more feelpinions?

Not all domestic violence is homicide.

No. Yet a large percentage of domestic violence victims have been threatened with guns.

I note again the conflation of gun ownership by the abuser with gun ownership by the victim.



...



And how many of them were able to protect themselves with a gun?

Again, you are making the claim that guns protect potential victims. Where are your stats?

Which suggests that women at high risk are likely to know that they are at high risk, and should be able to make the choice to defend themselves.

Again, facts please.

All the more reason to allow potential victims to protect themselves, because they may save other lives as well.

"May" isn't good enough - where are your facts?