• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Another Mall Shooting

I didn't notice if Joe clarified for himself his precise definition,
He never gave any definition at all; he just gave a couple of examples, both involving people he thought were mentally unstable...
but I'd like to clarify your interpretation of mine as to who constitutes a "gun nut." As a non-gun owning enthusiast myself, I define a "gun nut" as someone who is obsessed with Wayne LaPierre's imaginary "jack-booted thugs" coming to take his guns away. I'd also include someone who loves guns and talks endlessly about the 2nd Amendment and ignores, say, the 1st and 4th. And as I mentioned above, folks like my co-worker who considered themselves Constitutional Scholars because they read some treatise they downloaded from NRA.com
...while your definition doesn't seem to necessarily involve mental illness.

And I've never seen anything from you suggesting that "gun nuts" be banned (whatever that means) or that their speech be banned, as Joe has. He still hasn't explained what that's all about...
 
Okay, maybe not all semi-automatics can be described as assault rifles in your nomenclature, but I would have thought that weapons which can fire off multiple bullets in seconds can "assault" people very effectively.

Wow. You really didn't know the difference between an assault rifle and a semi-automatic handgun? To you, the difference is just semantics?

:jaw-dropp

I am thoroughly astounded.

Once more an indication that gun control freaks tend to be the most ignorant of the bunch when it comes to firearms.

And I didn't need to google the relative size of the US, the UK and Australia. I know that there is quantitively more violence in the US due to it's size. There is probably no more violence per capita in the US than Australia. It's just that people who snap simply do not have access to high-powered semi-automatics any more.

So you knew that was probably a relevant cause for difference, and yet you still think that the U.S., and Australia/UK are directly comparable, neh?

Laughable.
 
Last edited:
And of course the laws in the "gun-free UK" didn't seem to stop the IRA etc from amassing quite an arsenal of military-grade weaponry. And if you can't keep them out of a tiny country like NI, good luck with keeping them out of a country where they already proliferate by a hundred million.


Yeah. Those collecting tins at St Patricks Day Parades in Boston and New York can get you quite an impressive little arsenal at an American gun show
 
Last edited:
It did not take long for the Brady Campaign to take advantage of the mall shooting to make up a lie to support their gun ban agenda. http://www.bradycampaign.com/

"30-round ammunition clips would have been illegal under the federal assault weapons ban. Having a military-style assault rifle and high-capacity ammunition clips enabled a troubled 19-year-old to kill and injure a large number of people quickly and efficiently."

The 1994 AWB did not ban semi-auto AK's nor the 30 round mags. It only banned importation and new production for civilian use. 30 round AK mags are standard capacity not high capacity.

Ranb
 
Last edited:
Whilst I think "high-capacity" is a legitimate term for any magazine of more than a few rounds, there is definite misrepresentation by the anti-gun lobby which is part of an appeal to emotion argument that though fallacious, is politically powerful and all most (left-of centre) people need to be persuaded that guns are bad (mmkay).

"Military style assault rifle" is a classic. Firstly, all assault rifles are by definition military style, since a military role is what the type was designed to fulfil - a rifle firing an intermediate cartridge and with full-automatic capability. The Germans coined the term Sturmgewehr or "storm rifle" to describe what was then a new type of weapon. It's supposed to be the best possible compromise weapon to fulfil the various roles that an infantryman may be called upon to fight in. Lose the full-auto capability and it's no longer an assault rifle, although it is just as capable of killing and wounding as any military rifle of the past 100 years.

Thus the choice is not between "assault rifles" and other emotive weapons so much as it is between any full-bore and/or high-velocity rifle that fires with each press of the trigger. The anti-gun lobby realise they need to draw the distinction to get any political or public support for what they see as the start of a series of bans like those we've had in the UK.

I don't object to proposals for weapon control, but they need to be divorced of all the emotional and sensational baggage.
 
Last edited:
I don't object to proposals for weapon control, but they need to be divorced of all the emotional and sensational baggage.
Yeah, good luck with that. You're about as likely to see a perpetual motion machine invented by an invisible pink unicorn.
 
Hmmm, looks like having someone on the scene with a firearm just cut the death toll at one of those Colorado church shootings. Yes, she was a security guard, but the principle is still the same.
 
Okay, maybe not all semi-automatics can be described as assault rifles in your nomenclature, but I would have thought that weapons which can fire off multiple bullets in seconds can "assault" people very effectively.

Assault rifle is a technical category.

A semi automatic rifle, like my Ruger Mini-14, which fires .223 cal (5.56mm NATO standard round) when it has the manufacturer's five round clip in it is hardly an assault rifle. It is a semi automatic rifle.

In the early 80's, I purchased a number of banana clips, some 20 round and some 30 round. With the 30 round clip in it, you could assert that the rifle approaches the capability of an assault rifle in capable hands. It then becomes a dick dance, but the definition is reasonably clear. My Mini-14 isn't one.

When I use it for hunting, however, having a banana clip in it is illegal. I normally only load 3 rounds anyway in the clip anyway, since most game runs off at the first shot. ;) Filling the air with lead by rapid firing in a semi automatic mode is an abysmal hunting method. It also wastes ammo. :p

FWIW, the definitions are useful to refer to when discussing this topic with Americans. The terminology matters.

Wikipedia has a decent summary.
Wiki said:
The term "assault weapon" in the context of civilian rifles has been attributed to gun-control activist Josh Sugarmann.

The term assault weapon refers to semi-automatic firearms (that is, firearms that, when fired, automatically extract the spent casing and load the next round into the chamber, ready to fire again) that were developed from earlier fully-automatic weapons.

By former U.S. law the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, H&K G36E, TEC-9, all AK-47s, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of features from the following list of features:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Large capacity ammunition magazines
Folding or telescoping stock
Conspicuous pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher
One can point to on my Mini-14 with a 30 round clip, and that's all. So no, not an assault weapon.
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or silencer
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz or more
A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

My Berreta 9mm is not an assault weapon.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine
The gas operated shotgun I am considering buying is not an assault weapon. The pump action shotgun I own is obviously not.
Four more gun deaths today. How many more?
Why does that matter? People die every day.

I don't support the notion that because a nutcase may use a gun irresponsibly that you should restrict my rights, or that of the vast majority of citizens who are not nutcases. The reservation of rights except those afforded the government is a concept embedded in our legal framework. What was not embedded is a promise to bubble wrap life.

The point you were making about unstable people grabbing a gun and doing something foul points precisely to the problem, which is that a certain sort of people are the killing agents, and the root problem.

The old bumper sticker is "guns don't kill people, people kill people." (And some use guns to do so.)

DR
 
Last edited:
From what I can tell this is an authentic perspective of a peaceful law-abiding "gun-nut" at the mall shooting in question.

I'm just waiting for someone to say "Yeah, I usually carry my gun, but I left it in my car while in the mall that day... I was 20 yards away from the shooter thinking 'if only I didn't leave my gun in the car.'"

Looks like I found what I was looking for...

Of course, because of the hysteria about guns in general, and the fact that damn near none of the places where there are mass amounts of people (otherwise known as "places ripe with targets") allow guns to be carried on the premises, he didn't just leave the gun in the car... he left it at home and didn't even bother getting his permit to carry concealed.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm, looks like having someone on the scene with a firearm just cut the death toll at one of those Colorado church shootings. Yes, she was a security guard, but the principle is still the same.

He was a private volunteer security person... not a hired guard. That makes it even better!
 
And I am still waiting for an explanation for the lack of mass firearm killings here and in the UK since the ban on semi-automatics.
Why? What probative value does it lend to an argument that no one has suggested an alternate explanation that satisfies you?

Besides, you haven't exactly proven the effect your cause is supposed to have brought about. Were there enough mass shootings before the ban that the lack since is statistically significant?

Also, why do you believe that such a ban enacted in the US would have the same effect you believe it had in the UK and Australia? It can't be presumed, of course, because we're obviously talking about very different situations to begin with. For example, how widespread was ownership of the banned weapons in the UK and Australia, and how does that compare to the US? What proportion of such weapons now in existence do you believe would be turned over? Do you assume it would be the same as it was in other countries? Why?

Or are you simply asking in the OP why the US doesn't institute a ban as a reactionary measure to sensationalized events, no matter the actually effect of such a ban?
 
He was a private volunteer security person... not a hired guard...


She. And she was very brave.

Jeanne Assam, a church member who volunteers as a security guard, shot and killed Murray, who was found with a rifle and two handguns, police said. The pastor called her "a real hero."

"When the shots were fired, she rushed toward the scene and encountered the attacker there in a hallway. He never got more than 50 feet inside our building," he said. "There could have been a great loss of life yesterday, and she probably saved over 100 lives."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071210/ap_on_re_us/church_shootings
 
Well, it was California. If Nicole or Ron were able to defend themselves and kill Simpson in the process, they probably would have needed that same dream team to get them acquitted.

Ranb
 
I would bet OJ could have stabbed 6 more.

What would have happened had Ron or Nicole had a gun?



Hehe. Hey, don't put a gun in my hand. I'm maaaaad!:D


Lets not forget the part where I said that there are many ways to build bombs with nothing but everyday objects you can find at the nearest grocery store. Bombs that can kill a lot of people simultaneously.

Shall we ban every single product from grocery stores?
 

Back
Top Bottom