School shooting: but don't mention guns!

[jimbob]

I understand the need for rifles and shotguns for hunting. I understand why people might believe that they need a handgun for self-defence.

I keep wondering what the situations that people envisage where having potential for even the half dozen shots of a revolver would be needed for self-defence in a civilian context.

I really don't see a reasonable civilian use for carbines, except shooting on ranges, which is where I think they should be kept.

 

[Autolite]

You think cosmetics is the only difference between an AR-15 and say, a 30-30?

Well, I believe the most commonly found version of the AR15 rifle uses .223 ammunition fired in semi-automatic fashion. There are also several types of rifles that can fire various sorts of .30 calibre ammunition in the same semi-automatic manner but the rounds are generally more powerful and might have a further effective range.

What sort of comparison were you looking for???

 

[zeggman]

I believe I've actually seen the statistic before in the book "The Science of Fear", the author of which was not a gun nut by any stretch. I don't know if he originated it or not. As to this conversation and it's appropriateness I can see how you might think it irrelevant, but it didn't strike me as inappropriate as part of the point the particular poster was making, which may or may not have been tangent to the discussion. I'll see if I can find it now.

If it was mine, it's here.

 

[Polaris]

As has been asked, so where then do you draw the line?

Bazookas?
Machine guns?
RPGs?
Tanks?
Grenades?

I do agree that people using the argument, "You don't need assault weapons to hunt" miss the point of the 2nd Amendment.

All those things are currently legal with the proper licensing. How about "man-transportable center- and rim-fire firearms"? That would rule out crew-served weapons (with the exception of the tank, since it's the cannon on it that is the biggest danger).

 

[joesixpack]

...(like Joe the Juggler)...

I'm the other Joe!

 

[RemieV]

I forget who posted the swimming pool comparison earlier, but I do remember that the qualifier was "children 4 years old and under". I think that is probably true as children in that age category are rarely killed by firearms.

Please keep in mind that when statistics are compiled and thrown around they don't always mean what you think they mean. For example, "Children" means anyone under the age of 18. Far more kids in the 15-18 category are killed by firearms than below the age of ten. However, when "children killed by firearms" is listed, it includes a very high risk group of teen age males mixed in with what our emotional mind thinks of as "children".

Yes, teen aged boys being killed by gun violence is horrible, but there is a far different societal context and a very different sort of solution that should be applied to them. In other words, child-proofing and trigger locks aren't going to address that problem any more than childproofing a bleach bottle will prevent a teen from opening it. And addressing teen gang violence is not going to directly engage the problem of school mass shooters.

ETA I can't make heads or tails of your numbers by the way.

(Bolding mine)

You do realize that trigger locks are padlocks that make it impossible to pull the trigger unless you have the key, right? It isn't the same as childproofing aspirin.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...oogleMKP&cm_mmc=KNC-GoogleMKP-_-pla-_-NA-_-NA

 

[Autolite]

The reason people want to regulate "assault weapons" differently is because they look scary and have a scary sounding name. The "assault weapons" nonsense is an argument cultivated in irrational fear.

If an 'assault weapon' is defined as a selective fire semi-automatic/automatic firearm then aren't they already regulated by the BATF(and Explosives)?

I'm not familiar with the details, but I was under the impression that legal ownership of a firearm capable of automatic fire requires a special 'Class III' permit that is issued only after an investigation by the federal government.

Perhaps there might be someone here who can fill us in on the specifics regarding the legal acquisition of a Class III 'assault weapon'...

 

[thaiboxerken]

Not as a result of, but preceded by? If those kids hadn't been playing or practicing football, they would still have died at that time from those causes. It just wouldn't have been after playing or practicing for football. Yeah, that seems like a rational way to frame the argument.

Even the NFL has been legislating more rules to try to minimize injury. Why are gun nuts not willing to do so?

 

[joesixpack]

Shows you what I know...

[qimg]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_yK42zzS0oSI/TMY_uwXzVcI/AAAAAAAAAEE/NOyl-49Pz_o/s1600/Marlin_1.JPG[/qimg]

Something like that....

A 30-30 in lever action or bolt action is a particularly deadly weapon, as is an AR-15. I would be equally fearful facing an attacker with either of those weapons. One looks more like a traditional hunting rifle, the other looks like a military rifle. So the difference is primarily cosmetic. I suppose reloading the AR is faster. I don't think it would have made a difference while shooting unarmed victims, it would make a bigger difference if you were shooting against an armed enemy who was shooting back.

 

[DavidJames]

I'm flabbergasted. Are people honestly trying claim that someone walking into a school or theater and killing dozens of people is no different then having people drown in a swimming pool. Yes, in both cases they are dead. But other then that, are you really telling me there is no difference and society should treat each the same? Cold blooded murder and accidental drowning should be considered equal?

 

[Noztradamus]

As has been asked, so where then do you draw the line?

Bazookas?
Machine guns?
RPGs?
Tanks?
Grenades?

I do agree that people using the argument, "You don't need assault weapons to hunt" miss the point of the 2nd Amendment.

Just hypothetically. The other side of non area-effect weapons operable by a single individual.

If pushed, follow the Swiss model. Civilians may posses a semi-automatic version of the selective fire regular military arm, or the equivilent.

All else: wood or plastic, adjustable stocks, flash hiders, projecting pistol-style grip, shoulder thing that goes up, etc - totally not to be considered

 

[Quad4_72]

If an 'assault weapon' is defined as a selective fire semi-automatic/automatic firearm then aren't they already regulated by the BATF(and Explosives)?

I'm not familiar with the details, but I was under the impression that legal ownership of a firearm capable of automatic fire requires a special 'Class III' permit that is issued only after an investigation by the federal government.

Perhaps there might be someone here who can fill us in on the specifics regarding the legal acquisition of a Class III 'assault weapon'...

Here you go:
http://www.wikihow.com/Get-a-Class-3-Firearms-License

 

[joesixpack]

(Bolding mine)

You do realize that trigger locks are padlocks that make it impossible to pull the trigger unless you have the key, right? It isn't the same as childproofing aspirin.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...oogleMKP&cm_mmc=KNC-GoogleMKP-_-pla-_-NA-_-NA

You are aware of the ability of teen age boys to not only open aspirin bottles but get their hands on their parents car keys for a joy ride, right? A trigger lock has a key as well.

And reading further, I stated that trigger locks are a non starter when it comes to most teen gun violence. These kids are buying guns illegally, not using their parent's.

 

[thaiboxerken]

And yet. The spirit of the Second Amendment would seem to be: no infringement of the right of people to possess firearms with militia effective features. The very features the AWBs concentrate on removing, even the shoulder thing which goes up.

For well related militia.. .

 

[Noztradamus]

A 30-30 in lever action or bolt action is a particularly deadly weapon, as is an AR-15. I would be equally fearful facing an attacker with either of those weapons. One looks more like a traditional hunting rifle, the other looks like a military rifle. So the difference is primarily cosmetic. I suppose reloading the AR is faster. I don't think it would have made a difference while shooting unarmed victims, it would make a bigger difference if you were shooting against an armed enemy who was shooting back.

And despite what the lying liars at the lying VPC will tell you, a AR-15 is actually harder to "spray-fire from the hip" than an old-man lever-action .30-30 (as those of us who grew up watching The Rifleman know)

 

[lionking]

I'm flabbergasted. Are people honestly trying claim that someone walking into a school or theater and killing dozens of people is no different then having people drown in a swimming pool. Yes, in both cases they are dead. But other then that, are you really telling me there is no difference and society should treat each the same? Cold blooded murder and accidental drowning should be considered equal?

You're not the only one flabbergasted.

The other point, of course, is that better regulation of pools can make things safer and save young lives. As can better regulation of firearms

 

[joesixpack]

I'm flabbergasted. Are people honestly trying claim that someone walking into a school or theater and killing dozens of people is no different then having people drown in a swimming pool. Yes, in both cases they are dead. But other then that, are you really telling me there is no difference and society should treat each the same? Cold blooded murder and accidental drowning should be considered equal?

So I see the emotional context of the cause of death is far more important than the actual result. No one here on either side of this debate is shrugging their shoulders and saying "Same diff, kids die all sorts of ways". You seem unable to discuss possible solutions to the problem dispassionately. It's a pity because rational measures need to be taken, not emotionally charged feel-good-but-accomplish-nothing measures.

 

[jimbob]

A 30-30 in lever action or bolt action is a particularly deadly weapon, as is an AR-15. I would be equally fearful facing an attacker with either of those weapons. One looks more like a traditional hunting rifle, the other looks like a military rifle. So the difference is primarily cosmetic. I suppose reloading the AR is faster. I don't think it would have made a difference while shooting unarmed victims, it would make a bigger difference if you were shooting against an armed enemy who was shooting back.

Which is why I mentioned carbines in my post #1581

 

[Noztradamus]

For well related militia.. .

Which would be the one those cousin-marrying Shelbyvillers have.

 

[jimbob]

You're not the only one flabbergasted.

The other point, of course, is that better regulation of pools can make things safer and save young lives. As can better regulation of firearms

And few posters are arguing for total firearm bans. I'd be wanting one if I lived in bear country.