The Last Bass Outpost
Main Forums => The Outpost Cafe => Topic started by: nofi on June 13, 2016, 06:05:38 AM
-
prayers for all of those involved in this horrible beyond belief tragedy. :sad:
-
(http://i976.photobucket.com/albums/ae241/cata1d0/ME/Pray%20Guns_zps3gjiszzm.jpg) (http://s976.photobucket.com/user/cata1d0/media/ME/Pray%20Guns_zps3gjiszzm.jpg.html)
...just anticipating where this thread will eventually end up after the usual lip service.
-
Leaving the helpful and highly pragmatic idea aside for a moment how this might not have happened if from now on every visitor of a gay disco received a rental semi-automatic at the door plus a 10 minute shooting instruction to defend himself and his inherent right to bear arms, the tragedy in Orlando did hit me personally. Why? Because my daughter is considering to do her Master studies in Tel Aviv and my first thought as a father of course is: Does she really have to go to a place where people are regularly wantonly killed by terrorrists just for walking around and being assumed to be Jewish (as it happened there only recently)? (I accept that giving in to that concern is giving in to terrorist aims and that Ilan lives with that threat every day for pretty much all of his life, but would a gravestone inscription "She died unbowed by terrorism ..." make me feel any better?)
And when I heard about Orlando yesterday my thoughts were: Now if she had studied in Orlando and had given me a call on Saturday afternoon that she was looking forward to going to that hot gay disco in town, I wouldn't have been worried in the slightest and perhaps only wise-cracked some low-pc one-liner "Well, watch out for your butt then!" And a couple of hours late she might have been dead, it doesn't take Tel Aviv at all for that to happen.
I'm a child of the sixties, I lived a sheltered life under the Cold War and under the glorious concept of Mutually Assured Destruction, there were proxy wars everywhere and the Mid East was already a powder keg, we had terrorism in Germany, but what we did not have were these mass murder assaults on people totally unrelated to whatever the terrorist agenda might be as they have happened in New York, Madrid, London, Paris and now Orlando in the last decade-and-a-half. The prevalence of Global terrorism and how it can hit anyone anywhere - except, maybe, in North Korea - is highly disturbing.
-
No matter what the media says, it's not the largest mass shooting in US history. The massacre at Wounded Knee, the Branch Davidian massacre in Waco... oh wait, I guess it isn't terrorism when the government murders its own citizens.
Restricting the rights of all gun owners because of the actions of a few makes as much sense as restricting the rights of all Muslims because of the actions of a few.
-
With you on the first point Dave. Nice whitewash on the inquest into that too.
I will refrain responding to the second, because that's too political (ban bait).
Anyway, back to Orlando - what is interesting is how the cops and media are trying to paint this as domestic terrorism and not a hate crime, which it obviously is.
-
...
-
With you on the first point Dave. Nice whitewash on the inquest into that too.
I will refrain responding to the second, because that's too political (ban bait).
Anyway, back to Orlando - what is interesting is how the cops and media are trying to paint this as domestic terrorism and not a hate crime, which it obviously is.
It's both actually. Hate against gays, yes, but also against Western values (if you - like me - think that gay liberation is a good thing)/Western permissiveness (if you don't). Two strikes in one.
Wounded Knee is both a spot-on and a flawed comparison, Dave, even though it wasn't the government against its own people, but hereditary immigrants from Europe against the native population (and in that way akin to Orlando then, except that the murderer's parents came from a bit father east then Europe). But Custer wasn't by himself IIRC.
-
... the Branch Davidian massacre in Waco ...
Libertarian nonsense and conspiracitis, Dave, and you know it. Last I heard, the people in Waco weren't dancing with each other when some guy entered their premises and started gunning them down. Waco was a train wreck of a police action, yes, but comparing it to Orlando is inapt.
If you want to get into comparisons, I find Orlando most akin to the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995. Unless you saw that as citizens rightfully defending themselves against Big Government of course - which would tie in with your Waco comparison, but I'm sure you didn't mean it that way.
-
It's both actually. Hate against gays, yes, but also against Western values (if you - like me - think that gay liberation is a good thing)/Western permissiveness (if you don't). Two strikes in one.
Yes, the case can be made (it is terror, in that it elicits that emotion), but under such a loose interpretation, just about any violent or merely destructive (including inconvenience causing loss of income) action could be called Terrorism. This is exactly the kind of thinking I am trying to discourage, because then just about any protester is a terrorist. It's a moot charge in most cases (unless it's also a conspuiracy, which this clearly isn't, where you need to charge the perp as well as the mastermind) because all those things are already crimes with appropriate punishments (would another life/death sentence on top of the 50 for murder really make a difference or serve any useful purpose at all?).
The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence to suggest that this was "calculated" to "influence" or "affect" policy (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition) - only evidence that the guy just really hated gay people and was a bit off (which could preclude the calculated bit just as it could be grounds for not criminally responsible had he not died, and stood trial, though I'm sure they woulda found a way to fry him anyway).
Yes there was talk from the shooter that he was a member of this and that group (and the FBI investigated 3 years ago), but:
“First he claimed family connections to Al Qaeda,” which, like the Islamic State, is a Sunni Muslim terrorist group, James Comey, the F.B.I. director, said Monday. “He also said he was a member of Hezbollah,” a Shiite group in conflict with Al Qaeda and the Islamic State.
is just the sort of thing a crazy (unaffiliated/slightly out of touch with political reality) person would say. He was mentally unstable, and hateful. Since the man is dead (and any charges or jail time/death penalty completely moot) lets not let this turn into a pretext incident for new 'security measures.' ... Though a few restrictions on guns down there (background checks; closing the gun show loophole) could really not hurt, IMHO, but I don't get to vote on that one.
-
....
Wounded Knee is both a spot-on and a flawed comparison, Dave, even though it wasn't the government against its own people, but hereditary immigrants from Europe against the native population (and in that way akin to Orlando then, except that the murderer's parents came from a bit father east then Europe). But Custer wasn't by himself IIRC.
Custer was 14 years dead before Wounded Knee.
... the Branch Davidian massacre in Waco ...
Libertarian nonsense and conspiracitis, Dave, and you know it. Last I heard, the people in Waco weren't dancing with each other when some guy entered their premises and started gunning them down. Waco was a train wreck of a police action, yes, but comparing it to Orlando is inapt.
If you want to get into comparisons, I find Orlando most akin to the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995. Unless you saw that as citizens rightfully defending themselves against Big Government of course - which would tie in with your Waco comparison, but I'm sure you didn't mean it that way.
You're completely missing the point. It's not about comparing the specifics, it's about the fact that it was a mass shooting, and a deliberate one at that. The government's stated pretext was to arrest David Koresh, but they were well aware that he jogged outside the compound every day. They knew they could have arrested him without incident. They consciously chose annihilate as many men, women and children as possible.
-
In the 1940's we had guns all over London to protect us from people called Germans...
In the 1970'2 we had tanks outside the entrances to London Airport (Heathrow to you) to protect us from Irish dissidents...
In 2016 we have cameras everywhere to protect us from everything...
A bear can not fight a flea because it just does not know where it will bite... it just knows that it will...
rip...
-
No matter what the media says, it's not the largest mass shooting in US history. The massacre at Wounded Knee, the Branch Davidian massacre in Waco... oh wait, I guess it isn't terrorism when the government murders its own citizens.
Restricting the rights of all gun owners because of the actions of a few makes as much sense as restricting the rights of all Muslims because of the actions of a few.
I read this earlier and it has been bothering me. There is no comparison between military and law enforcement actions gone bad and the actions of a single crazed individual. The argument is meaningless, regardless of how misguided or reprehensible Wounded Knee or Waco might have been (I lived near Waco at the time that happened, and my opinion differs, but that's not relevant either.)
If you will, this is the largest mass shooting in the history of the US by a single individual. Better?
And as a firearms owner of long standing, I believe it's time to do something. I offer one bottom line: THE SOLUTION IS NOT MORE GUNS. I reject the NRA line that everyone should be armed. While serving as a reserve Deputy, I met many idiots and bad actors who I hope never own a firearm. They won't do anything good with them.
The answer to public shootings is not for everyone to go armed and generate a public firefight, either. There would be as many or more casualties from panic and execrable shooting, and when the police do arrive, they're as likely to shoot the self-appointed "good guys" as they are the bad guys.
Somehow, by some method, we need to find ways to keep people who are mentally ill or driven by hate from getting firearms. This is one position the gun lobby has refused to even consider. They won't allow universal background checks, which are only a tiny part of the answer, but still a positive part of it. Police even back this idea: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-police-idUSKCN0SK2RR20151026
They won't allow police to trace firearms firearms history across all states, thanks to the Tihart amendments, which currently prohibit ATF from releasing firearm trace data for use by cities, states, researchers, litigants and members of the public, except in aggregate form. http://smartgunlaws.org/maintaining-gun-sales-background-check-records-policy-summary/
Want a summary of the problems? http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-trafficking-straw-purchasing-policy-summary/
Now remember, I own multiple handguns and rifles. I've been shooting since I was 12. I'm not eager to give them up, and I see no reason that I need to. But I'm neither a hate-filled fanatic or (other than the evidence provided by tweaking Dave with this post) subject to mental problems.
We need to figure out that some people are not worthy of owning firearms. Period. And we need to find a way to limit their access to firearms. I'd like to see the gun lobby contributing to that simple approach instead of trying to arm cats, dogs and infants.
I feel like Viper in Top Gun, facing Maverick and saying (paraphrased as necessary):
"The simple fact is you feel responsible for these deaths and you have a firearms problem. Now I'm not gonna sit here and blow sunshine up your ass. A good citizen is compelled to evaluate what's happened, so he can apply what he's learned. In a democracy, we gotta regulate ourselves. That's our job. It's your option, citizen. All yours."
-
Supposedly the shooter was on an FBI watch list, and had been investigated twice. Yet he could still buy guns despite that?
-
My bad mixing Little Big Horn and Wounded Knee up!
As for the much toted gun discussion: America is America, keep your hunting rifles and hand guns, but where in the Second Amendment does it say that semi-automatics and other military weaponry are to be taken to dancehalls to mass-shoot people there? And how can someone who's on a watchlist of the FBI with repeated investigations and who openly supports ISIS walk into a gun store and come out an hour later fully equipped for the Orlando onslaught? Lenin is on record for saying "the capitalists will sell us the noose with which we will hang them".
-
Exactly. Nowhere in the second amendment is the word semi-automatic. Use common sense.
-
There are conflicting reports of the configuration of the gun used and this bothers me a bit - the authorities say it was a semi AR-15; the people in the club have described fully automatic fire. The fact is a semi AR-15 (legal to own if you go through the process up here - arduous, takes years, so few do, and the crazies are at least mostly weeded out by it) can easily be converted to full auto with some basic modifications. The part required is readily available aftermarket. I am somewhat surprised that I know this, but we have gun lovers (and gun clubs) up here too; the rules are just different.
Supposedly the shooter was on an FBI watch list, and had been investigated twice. Yet he could still buy guns despite that?
Yes, I touched on that - see the link to the NYTimes article I posted above. He was investigated but not on a watch list (they concluded his claims to be ISIS-affiliated were bogus shit-talking, but in retrospect should have taken him more seriously due to total nutter).
-
My bad mixing Little Big Horn and Wounded Knee up!
As for the much toted gun discussion: America is America, keep your hunting rifles and hand guns, but where in the Second Amendment does it say that semi-automatics and other military weaponry are to be taken to dancehalls to mass-shoot people there? And how can someone who's on a watchlist of the FBI with repeated investigations and who openly supports ISIS walk into a gun store and come out an hour later fully equipped for the Orlando onslaught? Lenin is on record for saying "the capitalists will sell us the noose with which we will hang them".
I'm not going to discuss Second Amendment issues any more to keep this focused on Orlando except to say that you're right that the Second Amendment doesn't prohibit reasonable regulations. How reasonable would have to be decided by the courts.
By now you have probably heard that the killer was gay and a regular patron of the club, and that he also claimed allegiance to Hezbollah, which is a deadly enemy of ISIS. So I think we'll have to wait to get a fuller picture.
I've read something even more disturbing from two different sources this morning. Many of you may know that the FBI keeps foiling alleged terror plots of its own creation, having informants lure dupes into joining then busting them. According to these reports, the killer was actually introduced to informants by the FBI. If true, it's possible that he was lured into one of these plots and then acted it out. I sure hope this isn't true, because if it is, all hell will break loose.
It's just too early to tell.
-
That's a very disturbing possibility, Dave.
I can't shake the feeling from what I've read and heard that the shooter's primary motivation may have been homophobia, and that his claims of influence from ISIS may have been a red herring. I doubt we'll ever know. But many people have latched onto this as an Islamic extremist event, which I think is still open to question. Blaming Islam makes it easier to avoid debating the issues related to homophobic hate groups and firearms.
-
I don't have a preference for him being either an Islamic Terror fan boy or a psychopath closet gay that couldn't live with what nature had in store for him. Being gay and not having a valve to let it out in a conservative Islamic setting is by Allah nothing new - I have gay Muslim friends who could write books about that.
What freaks me is that for either Islamic bliss or the eradication of gay life perceived unworthy he walks out and kills 50 innocent people one by one.
-
The story in the UK is now being spun with the caveat "... in modern times".
-
In Australia you can't buy semi autos (longarms or handguns) without extensive red tape and due process to obtain the necessary permits, and any rifle is restricted to a magazine capacity of 5 rounds. We haven't had a "gun massacre" since those regulations were brought in after Port Arthur 20 years ago. Lots of Australians own guns - farmers, hunters, gun club members, security guards etc, but clearly it's the availability of high capacity magazines and weapons with semi auto capability that are the main contributing factor to civilian massacres (in any country).
Yes, I know, the gun lobby will tell us that a skilled shooter with a bolt action or lever action rifle could kill the same number of people while changing mags every 5 rounds, but you don't generally see mass killers using those weapons, which is telling.
-
Exactly. And - especially if you favor a, uhum, historic interpretation of the Constitution popular in certain quarters - I don't believe the authors of the 2nd Amendment had those types of weapons in mind at all or even thought them conceiveable. Let everyone have their own nuclear bomb then, it's a God-given right.
I read something interesting yesterday: Historically, Islam isn't such a violently anti-gay religion at all, it is something that only evolved in the last 100 years or so, in part due to Western colonial influence. Persian and Osmanic poets, writers and even religious scholars praised the virtues of "boy love" for a millenium and more, to an extent actually that Western translations of their works altered/censored the genders of characters because the texts were deemed too frank (anyone remember the extended rape scene in Lawrence of Arabia in the Osmanic police station or military compound?). Apparently, the Quran - I have a copy at home, I really need to get around to reading it - mostly skips the subject and is not as damning about it as, say, The Old Testament. (BTW: Is Jesus supposed to have ever said something about gays? The whole Apostle thing was pretty homoerotic if you ask me.)
It's a messed up world.
-
Technically speaking, Christianity has very weak anti-gay scriptural support. Yes there is that bit in the Old Testament about it being abonination and such, BUT, it is not one of the commandments AND, it is in the same section of the bible as not shaving your beard, not eating pork/shellfish, and women being considered unclean during menses (and all the rules around that - must stay in bed with legs wrapped up together etc)... and lets not forget circumcision, all of which have been established in the post ascention books of the New Testament to no longer apply due to being part of the 'old covenant' the new one based on the blood of Christ supersedes (the specific argument is based on whether Christians need to be circumcised and the answer was a clear no, not at all).
This is one of the things that bothers me generally about modern organised/popular Christianity; picking and choosing bits of the bible and applying them selectively, as well as taking random rules from the Old Testament and placing them above the basic teachings of Christ - that is to love (icluding your enemies) and do unto others (...). The irony of Christianity becoming so Phariseeonic is mindblowing considering Jesus' explicit and frequent criticism of the unwavering and uncaring dogmatic nature of that sect/social class. Then there's the further irony of how much certain Christian elements hate the LGBT community while professing a religion of peace and love; how gays get more anger directed towards them by that community than rapists, thieves and murderers, for whom there is ample forgivenes, even with repeat offenses. Those asshats with the 'God hates a fag' signs are actually committing a blasphemy (a bigger sin than being gay, by a country mile).
-
In Australia you can't buy semi autos (longarms or handguns) without extensive red tape and due process to obtain the necessary permits, and any rifle is restricted to a magazine capacity of 5 rounds. We haven't had a "gun massacre" since those regulations were brought in after Port Arthur 20 years ago. Lots of Australians own guns - farmers, hunters, gun club members, security guards etc, but clearly it's the availability of high capacity magazines and weapons with semi auto capability that are the main contributing factor to civilian massacres (in any country).
Yes, I know, the gun lobby will tell us that a skilled shooter with a bolt action or lever action rifle could kill the same number of people while changing mags every 5 rounds, but you don't generally see mass killers using those weapons, which is telling.
From what I've read, no mass shootings in Australia before Port Arthur involved semi-automatics with large capacity magazines. If that's true, one unfortunate event led to those restrictive laws. And I've also read that those regulations have had no effect on Australia's overall homicide rate. Regardless, you're talking about Australian society. The culture is different here.
FYI, the Columbine and Virginia Tech shooters used smaller magazines and reloaded. IIRC, the Virginia Tech shooter used 17 10-round magazines.
Then there's the slow police response in Orlando, as with Columbine and Virginia Tech. Turns out it took police three hours before police entered the nightclub. Hell, if it really was that long, Mateen could have used a musket. And now Orlando's police chief has admitted that some victims may have been shot by police. What a clusterf***.
Exactly. And - especially if you favor a, uhum, historic interpretation of the Constitution popular in certain quarters - I don't believe the authors of the 2nd Amendment had those types of weapons in mind at all or even thought them conceiveable. Let everyone have their own nuclear bomb then, it's a God-given right.
(sigh) And I said I wasn't going to discuss the Second Amendment any more.
No, the Founding Fathers obviously didn't have modern weaponry in mind. But in District of Columbia v. Heller -- the landmark Second Amendment case -- DC tried to use that argument as justification for their refusal to issue carry permits, and the US Supreme Court specifically rejected that argument. In any case, there's no popular support for unrestricted weapons ownership.
-
So now apparently there's witnesses (and a 911 call that the shooter made) saying the motive was the US bombing of Afganistan. Starting to think this guy just had a perfect storm of reasons/motives and may not have been so insane (in the legal not responsible sense); premeditation and PR awareness (not saying it was about LGBT people) kinda rule that out.
-
Did I mention I F*&^%)G hate guns................
Sorry, it's the only constructive input I have at this point.
-
Whether or not the guy was a patsy, when a mainstream media outlet like the Rolling Stone calls for an outright repeal of the second amendment, the event has been exploited in such a way that it may as well be considered state sponsored terrorism.
-
+1 Tbird1958
-
Whether or not the guy was a patsy, when a mainstream media outlet like the Rolling Stone calls for an outright repeal of the second amendment, the event has been exploited in such a way that it may as well be considered state sponsored terrorism.
Well that's a feasible constructive suggestion. That rag has been shit for years.
-
I think I'll remain diplomatically quiet...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-x2UoF6isg
-
"The culture is different here."
You say that, Dave, and you're the American who should know. But is there really a case to be made that (some) US Americans dig mass shootings more than others? Why is that? The US has a violent history, but so do most other nations, many of them a lot more violent than the US even in its darkest hours (Germany among them).
I sometimes wonder whether the US "lacks the experience" of a comparatively recent war on home territory, the Civil War is too long ago by now. The ravages of WW I and II were in countries far away. Europe saw within a comparatively short period again and again what arms can do.
-
From what I've read, no mass shootings in Australia before Port Arthur involved semi-automatics with large capacity magazines.
It's true that Australia doesn't have the lengthy list of mass shootings that the US has had over the years, but there were more than one that involved magazines with more than 10 round capacities, eg.
Hoddle St, 1987. M14 (7 dead)
Strathfield, 1991. SKK (8 dead)
You can see by those numbers alone that the 36 killed at Port Arthur was a uniquely high number in Australian history, so personally I believe our government did the right thing by closing down the risk of a repeat atrocity in emphatic fashion.
-
In Australia you can't buy semi autos (longarms or handguns) without extensive red tape and due process to obtain the necessary permits, and any rifle is restricted to a magazine capacity of 5 rounds. We haven't had a "gun massacre" since those regulations were brought in after Port Arthur 20 years ago. Lots of Australians own guns - farmers, hunters, gun club members, security guards etc, but clearly it's the availability of high capacity magazines and weapons with semi auto capability that are the main contributing factor to civilian massacres (in any country).
Yes, I know, the gun lobby will tell us that a skilled shooter with a bolt action or lever action rifle could kill the same number of people while changing mags every 5 rounds, but you don't generally see mass killers using those weapons, which is telling.
My understanding is that it is more complex than that, Mark, in relation to rifle magazine capacity regulations in Australia. You may be thinking semi auto and pump action shot guns with respect to Category C licences.
For manually repeating rifles (Categories A and B) there is no restriction in the National Firearms Agreement, but some states stipulate maximum capacity. For example an Enfield 303 commonly has a double stack detachable box magazine of 10 rounds and it is compliant in every state. Remington 308s off the shelf have integral box magazines of four rounds and can legally be modified to take detachable box magazines of the capacity determined by your state- in Queensland that is up and including fifteen rounds- perfectly legal. There are also complications based on the cosmetic appearance of the weapon, believe it ornot. Some weapons which on the functionality of the action should be Category A or B, are arbitrarily classified to higher categories on the basis of their cosmetic scariness (ie of military appearance).
On the main issue, personally I think a massacre is a massacre. I don't there's much change post 1996.
Like in other jurusdictions, the masscares of indigenous peoples are often left out of discussion here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia
I am not against licensing of people who want a gun/s, nor sufficient background checking, sensible regulations about about gun and ammunition security and storage or restriction of access to semi auto and auto weapons.
There is bipartisan support for the arrangements in place in Australia, but I hear a lot of misinformation around the issues (not just the regulation details) and see lack of consultation and representation of the views of what are now than 2 million legal firearm owners in Australia (almost 10% of the total population). That figure was recently obtained through Freedom Of Information requests and is unlikely to be heard or reported in the mainstream media, as it runs counter to the perception that Governments want to foster.
-
"The culture is different here."
You say that, Dave, and you're the American who should know. But is there really a case to be made that (some) US Americans dig mass shootings more than others? Why is that? The US has a violent history, but so do most other nations, many of them a lot more violent than the US even in its darkest hours (Germany among them).
I sometimes wonder whether the US "lacks the experience" of a comparatively recent war on home territory, the Civil War is too long ago by now. The ravages of WW I and II were in countries far away. Europe saw within a comparatively short period again and again what arms can do.
If I knew the answer to that, I'd be a guru. People would be beating a path to my mountaintop to get advice from me. But as my great-grandma used to say. "If you're so damned smart, then why ain't you rich?"
Anyway, the backstory is still developing. As Jake wondered earlier, this may turn out to be a perfect storm.
-
Did I mention I F*&^%)G hate guns................
Sorry, it's the only constructive input I have at this point.
My thougts too, but I kept quiet 8)
-
The Orlando attack is a tricky one for me. I'm weary of the current trend of news reporting, for starters. It feels, to me, that there has been a breakneck race for people to be the first to use the attack to further their cause, be it preemptively bashing Trump, supporting Trump, turning their Facebook profile picture into a wee rainbow, the works. The news here has been showing blurry Snapchat footage of scenes inside the club with gunfire going off in the background. I don't feel that is necessary to further the news story. I remember news being quite stoic when I was a kid. As long as there has been a portable means of capturing film people have captured clips of people being shot, racing cars flying into packed crowds, aircraft falling to earth and bombs exploding in packed streets. The news doesn't have to show any of that. It ultimately gets to a point where you end up passively resigned and weary of the whole thing. I turn on the news at 10:00 now and see a sea of conflict, strife and injustice. If I turn my back on that I somehow become bourgeois and insensitive, but what can I actually really do about any of this stuff? I don't think the news is engineered to empower the viewer, or even inform them as much as wear them down and make them feel powerless.
Americans must be pretty tired of having us Europeans repeatedly chastise them over an issue in their country that they are no doubt acutely aware of. Guns are an interesting phenomenon because whilst they are a tool they really only fulfill a very select few purposes, and ultimately the outcome of their one task lies with the handler. Common sense stuff, and only incomprehensible to us in the UK at least because there isn't a gun culture here. Culturally I think European countries lie slightly closer to Kantian ethics perhaps, as a lot of what we consider normal (such as cutting around the place unarmed) is basically for the benefit of the broader society and places less responsibility on the individual. I'm not saying anything is better or worse than anything else, only that the repeated criticism of mass-shootings in the US is often coming from people with a limited frame of reference. We have some fairly murky practices both currently and historically in Europe. Heck, last week we in the UK were celebrating the 90th birthday of an unelected figurehead who has a surprising level of influence on policies for a random old woman, and who is German but we all pretend is British. The PR team that work round the clock to maintain and promote a very tight image of the UK Royals, and who are always pulling people 'into line' seems bizarre, draconian and unhealthy. The UK also has a massive drink problem that nobody wants to talk about. No society is perfect, after all.
I care about the attack in Orlando, but only so much. I don't know any of the victims as far as I can tell, and I'm not sure their families really care a squat that some rando in Scotland has turned their Facebook profile picture into a wee rainbow for the next week or so. I do feel that many try and outperform each other in the public display of mourning, especially on the aforementioned Facebook and the like. When it gets to the stage that you feel you have to do something lest you end up the sore thumb then that isn't right.
-
The UK also has a massive drink problem that nobody wants to talk about.
I've heard plenty of chatter about that, actually, but in the grand scheme of things the problem is old and the chatter new and not accomplished much yet.... but that's not exactly on topic.
-
Surely you could say the same thing about guns in the US? In the grand scheme of things the problem is old and the chatter new and not accomplished much yet.
-
I'm just glad France has super strict gun laws so mass shootings like Charlie Hebdo and Bataclan could never happen there. Wait a minute...
-
They do say that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. :mrgreen:
-
Gun laws didn't prevent Labour MP Jo Cox from getting shot either. Another event being exploited by the establishment.
-
Jo Cox's killer supposedly built his own gun. I'm not sure how you would ever be able to police something like that.
-
To be fair, France does not have mass shootings every month committed by their own citizens. Those 2 incidents were jihadist terror acts encouraged and committed by mostly foreigners (some were naturalised citizens IIRC, but most weren't) and directly tied to actual terrorist groups. America has a distinct problem with lone nutters (i.e. not org crime related - that exists everywhere) - many (most) of them (this last guy is a bit of an exception in this regard) multi-generational-citizens, white, and Christian (Columbine, Oklahoma City, Charleston, Colorado Movie Theatre; never mind the thousands of domestic violence incidents yearly). The fact of the matter is, and this has been proven with clinical studies repeatedly, having a gun makes it more likely that someone will die (includes accidents) - contrary to knee jerk logic, in the same situation another object just won't do and the result is different. Just it being there makes the difference. The reason being that it's so easy and not as personal as other weapons, such as knives or random blunt objects. You don't have to push the blade in and feel the resistance of the flesh as well as the defensive struggle of the victim - just point and shoot from across the room. Like taking a selfie, or a video game. Same thing with drones (see what many former operators say about the experience).
Yes, an organized and/or highly motivated terrorist group will always find a way (improvised explosive devices like the marathon bombing), but you do have to compare apples to apples. Nobody thinks making something illegal, or putting some basic restrictions on it, eliminates it (see: drugs) but it does help reduce access for most people, especially the nutters. Criminals, gangs and terrorists will get them either way, but if at least if you can't walk into a store and buy an assault rifle in 7 minutes (https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/06/15/this-reporter-bought-an-ar-15-assault-rifle-in-7-minutes.html - yes the article is overblown but the basic point, minus the rest of the commentary, is valid), it would help reduce incidents brought on by extreme (temporary) emotional states (and we do know the Orlando shooter was prone to those, same with the Charleston guy) as well as body count.
Jo Cox's killer supposedly built his own gun. I'm not sure how you would ever be able to police something like that.
Again, we must be careful to think this through fairly; nobody claims gun control (to whatever degree) will eliminate the problem; a reduction would be a satisfactory start. But , fair point I suppose, gun control is just one thing; what must really change is the culture of violence (and this is not just an American problem, just that it tends to manifest with guns more often there, and in other ways elsewhere).
-
I'm just glad France has super strict gun laws so mass shootings like Charlie Hebdo and Bataclan could never happen there. Wait a minute...
Strict gun laws won't prevent bad guys bringing in guns illegally across land borders, which makes Europe a difficult location to police against that kind of thingTo be fair, France does not have mass shootings every month committed by their own citizens. Those 2 incidents were jihadist terror acts encouraged and committed by mostly foreigners (some were naturalised citizens IIRC, but most weren't) and directly tied to actual terrorist groups.
And potential terrorists in Europe can ignore the gun laws and bring in guns illegally across the various land borders that exist in Europe.
-
My thougts too, but I kept quiet 8)
No one here needs to keep quiet about his opinions so long as we aren't attacking each other personally.
But any discussion of gun laws is fruitless. No one's opinion is going to be changed.
I care about the attack in Orlando, but only so much. I don't know any of the victims as far as I can tell, and I'm not sure their families really care a squat that some rando in Scotland has turned their Facebook profile picture into a wee rainbow for the next week or so. I do feel that many try and outperform each other in the public display of mourning, especially on the aforementioned Facebook and the like. When it gets to the stage that you feel you have to do something lest you end up the sore thumb then that isn't right.
That's par for the course in today's world. So many people feel the need to belong to something even though they have no connection.
-
That's par for the course in today's world. So many people feel the need to belong to something even though they have no connection.
Not only that, but they feel the need to be conspicuous about it.
This guy could have ben stopped long ago - he was a bad egg from childhood on, if his school records are any indication. Another gun shop owner refused to sell to him because he was asking for body armor, bulk ammo and was speaking Arabic on his phone. The owner notified the FBI, but they did nothing. This is becoming a pattern. I saw Jim Kallstrom (who I tend to believe) on TV last night, and he was saying that the politically correct protocol regarding Muslims handed down from above has tied the FBI's hands. They cannot do the things they are trained to do in investigating these situations.
-
Thanks for the excellent, civil conversation on this hard topic.
As someone who likes numbers, I found this very interesting:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/us/gun-violence-graphics/
The first two data points are talked about a lot, but starting at the third, I think it gets interesting.
The homicide rate in the US is less than half of what it was in 1980.
Mass shootings are not the big public health problem they're made out to be, even in the US. They are relatively low in terms of the number of deaths involved. The media spends a lot of hours on them though.
Gun violence OTOH is a public health problem, with most gun deaths being suicides (~60%). Suicide (by all methods) is also a huge public health problem and the second leading cause of death for 15-34 year olds, after accidents.
It's sad to me that the media doesn't focus on the mental health and addiction crisis in the US. 129 people die from drug overdose every day. 13% of American adults take anti-depressants. I'm not saying people with depression are violent, just that there's a big problem with mental health in the US and that the violence problem is a symptom of something bigger. Even though I hate guns and support better regulating guns I don't believe that will make much difference in our violence problem. The media should be talking more about our mental health crisis and our violence problem and less about mass shootings and gun laws.
-
Gun violence OTOH is a public health problem, with most gun deaths being suicides (~60%). Suicide (by all methods) is also a huge public health problem and the second leading cause of death for 15-34 year olds, after accidents.
...and most suicides are not committed with a semi-automatic rifle
Since you're a "numbers guy", you'll probably find this interesting - minus the pro-gun viewpoint, of course.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE&feature=youtu.be&ab_channel=TruthRevoltOriginals
-
That was interesting. Thanks for posting it.
There is a lot of confusing correlation with causation on both sides of the issue. Looking at the countries and US cities with high murder rates, it's pretty clear that they are all poor. Murder rates and poverty seem more highly correlated than murder rates and gun ownership rates. Banning assault rifles is not going to make much difference in the total numbers since the vast majority of murders and suicides are committed with handguns.
It would be great if we could take a public health perspective on our violence problem and figure out a better way to address our mental health and addiction problems.
-
Claiming that mass shootings are not a problem based on numbers is kinda funny to me; it's qualitatively a problem, forget irrelevant quantitative comparison to the peak homicide period in US history (rise of the drug war and crack epidemic and gang /police violence). By that logic there's no problem at all since violent crime has been on a long term downward trend since colonial times.
Numbers can be massaged to benefit either side, the trick is to look at the numbers in the most relevant way. The FACT is, that mass murderers of random people in public in the last decade (which is a phenomenon on the rise trend-wise - we are seeing more of this type of specific act even though violence otherwise is in slow decline ) prefer semiautomatic weapons, especially the AR-15, which is the Honda Civic of assault rifles (cheap, easily modifiable; plenty of aftermarket upgrades available and DIY tutorials online). Think about the name of that firearm category - "assault rifle" - the anti-gun movement did not come up with that, manufacturers and the military did, and it says all that needs to be said. It's not for hunting, it's not for defense, it's for dropping as many hats as fast as possible before you get got, period. I get it, they're cool and sexy to those inclined; that's just not a good enough reason to let just anybody have them in the name of freedom. You must remember that freedom is finite, like wealth; the more freedom (or wealth) one person has; the less is available for everyone else (if you do whatever you want, whenever you want, there will be effects on other people, which infringes their freedom - these mass shootings are a clear example of that). There is a balance that must be struck. Keep your bolt actions, breach loaders and shotguns. If that don't keep you (the proverbial you, not anyone here in particular) happy, you're obsessed to an unhealthy level; they're just things. F1 cars are much cooler than an Audi, but we don't get to drive those around on the street, and that is also, technically, an infringement of freedom.
As for violence being a symptom of mental health, I also think you have the shoe on the other foot. The mental health crisis is real, sure, but the violence problem existed before that, back into antiquity. They do feed off of each other , though, in a negative cycle. I would attribute the mental health crisis to the extremely unnatural order of things that has developed in western society as well as an increasing pace of change (social, technological, etc) that many are not ready and ill prepared for (in part due to the unnatural order).
Despite this I strongly agree with :
It would be great if we could take a public health perspective on our violence problem and figure out a better way to address our mental health and addiction problems.
I would just add that that tactic is a long term one. Banning assault rifles and making background checks work better and manditory in all cases with no loopholes is something that we can do now which would have some positive impact nearly immediately. But no, it won't eliminate the problem; no single tactic will, which is why a strategy must include both of these things.
-
... Think about the name of that firearm category - "assault rifle" - the anti-gun movement did not come up with that, manufacturers and the military did, and it says all that needs to be said. It's not for hunting, it's not for defense, it's for dropping as many hats as fast as possible before you get got, period....
Not quite. The military came up with the term "assault rifle" for fully automatic rifles. Not for the likes of the AR-15. "Assault weapons" is a term invented by gun control advocates. It describes semi-automatic weapons that look like fully automatic weapons. It isn't a legal classification. They are one shot per trigger pull, just like any double action revolver.
I would just add that that tactic is a long term one. Banning assault rifles and making background checks work better and manditory in all cases with no loopholes is something that we can do now which would have some positive impact nearly immediately. But no, it won't eliminate the problem; no single tactic will, which is why a strategy must include both of these things.
Assault rifles are already banned unless you have a Class III Firearms license. There was an "assault weapons ban" in effect for 10 years in the US (1994-2004). It didn't reduce the murder rate or mass shootings.
I think the increase in mass shootings since then is at least partially driven by the rise of the internet, especially social media. Crazy people who want to make a statement can make themselves known to everybody and promote hysteria.
-
Thank you, Dave - I've grown weary of having to post those exact thoughts over and over again in other venues. There are scores of semi-auto rifles made, and trying to ban one specific model will open a Pandora's Box re the others.
There have been crazy people forever, probably - and there have been violent deaths ever since Zog first bashed another Early Man in the head with a rock. The mental health issue is complex, but I frankly don't see a way to effectively handle it other than depriving the afflicted of some civil rights. That may sound harsh, but the effects of the ACLU and progressive movement back in the 60s (in this particular area) have clearly made the world - and the USA in particular - a more dangerous place. Used to be, if you were crazy, you got locked up.
We also live in a world where there exists a dichotomy - one where cultures that have yet to evolve beyond the tribal phase have adopted modern technologies - which they neither respect nor understand beyond using them for the most primitive of purposes. There's always a market for a more effective way of killing.
-
Not quite. The military came up with the term "assault rifle" for fully automatic rifles. Not for the likes of the AR-15. "Assault weapons" is a term invented by gun control advocates. It describes semi-automatic weapons that look like fully automatic weapons. It isn't a legal classification. They are one shot per trigger pull, just like any double action revolver.
I stand corrected, but (as demonstrated by the case of the AR-15) many semi-auto 'assault weapons' can very easily be modified by the user to be actual full auto "assault rifles".
-
I stand corrected, but (as demonstrated by the case of the AR-15) many semi-auto 'assault weapons' can very easily be modified by the user to be actual full auto "assault rifles".
If anyone is dumb enough to put a Hellfire Trigger in an AR, they'll deserve what it does to them. Any serious shooter with an intent to kill the greatest number of people, which includes the supposed "nutjobs" who carry out mass shootings, is going to favor a semiauto anyway, and NOT a rifle or even a carbine. It will never be reported, but the majority of those killed will have died from handgun wounds, not .223 rifle bullets, even including those inadvertently shot by police (AR-15's and M-16's are standard SWAT weapons).
...been preoccupied with other things and not dredging- this is my first read of this thread. I'll come out and say what others have implied, the shooter could not have been a more perfect poster child to advance gun control, and it just supposed to be coincidence that the FBI had pre-existing relationship with him and that he somehow managed to maintain a security clearance that is hard enough for folks who have NEVER been on a terror watch list to attain? Piss on my back and tell me it's raining.
The real issue is not one of firearms but of safety and security, and unlike the weapons being demonized, not a single law enforcement agency from the local to the national level did its job at a level anywhere near competency. If "assault weapons" are banned, are those new laws going to be enforced by the same clowns who can't uphold the ones we have already? I would be much more open to revisiting government oversight of firearms IF the government could demonstrate that it could use such power to any better effect than exists under the laws we now have.
I won't even begin to address the bullshit so-called "news" about this! Thankfully I don't have to put up with the sanctimony anymore that was always overflowing from the newsroom about guns, yet whenever there was a scary guy at the station door, I was was breathlessly asked if I was armed (wasn't) and would I mind answering the door. A CNN "profile" I saw of the Sig AR that was used made me seriously want to punch the "reporter" in the face, and I AM a "left-winger!!"
-
It will never be reported, but the majority of those killed will have died from handgun wounds, not .223 rifle bullets, even including those inadvertently shot by police (AR-15's and M-16's are standard SWAT weapons).
This may be true (I have no idea), but I'm not exactly of a mind that semi pistols with 9+ mag capacity should be legal either. Just try mass murdering with a revolver; get swarmed on the reload.
The real issue is not one of firearms but of safety and security
Careful, you're on a slippery slope there.
Again, I don't think anyone is claiming that the only problem is the guns and that outlawing them is a magic fix, BUT, we know with absolute certainty that 1)statistically, the more guns are around, the more people get killed (may just be correllation, not causation, but that is still significant as a factor) and 2) it is too easy for any old shmuck to get a gun. If you need a gun immediately (a 3 day background check is going to ruin it for you) then you're most likely up to no good anyway. And despite all the it's-not-the-AR15's-fault arguments I hear, not one person has countered the argument, as far as I am aware (made by many responsible gun owners/afficandos themselves) of what the hell you actually need one of those for? Just like assault weapons, I similarly see no reasonable justification for semi handguns either. In fact both are very rare up here - it IS legal to own them after a long process; few do, because when it comes down to it, there's no reason other than having a cooler toy. And there are levels of ownership - it is truely rare that you can keep one at home (again, poeple figure the process isn't worth it, but if you're stubborn enough and sane you can do it); most people who have them have to store them at the gun club where they are members (and you have to be a member of a legit gun club to get your license - ensures you have some training and supervision at least).
-
This may be true (I have no idea), but I'm not exactly of a mind that semi pistols with 9+ mag capacity should be legal either. Just try mass murdering with a revolver; get swarmed on the reload.
Not quite. There are plenty of drop-in carousel revolver clips that make reloading one just as fast as a magazine being plunked into a normal semi-automatic action pistol. If the reports are to be believed, with the volume of fire the offender supposedly laid down with his weapons, he HAD to have reloaded his magazines anyway. Ever load .223 into a 30 round mag? It is NOT a fast process no matter how practiced. The number of shots fired is only one of the many, many things about this incident that doesn't add up. The national news media was so busy frothing at the mouth to pin the evil on the rifle that almost of all the "reports" have been thinly veiled editorials with huge holes in the facts that are not and never will be addressed. Supposedly he fired over 1000 rounds. ...and not a single person thought of charging him once in the entire THREE HOURS that the rampage lasted even though he had to reload a MINIMUM of 35 times??? Patrons were quick enough to take Snapchat videos but NOT to tackle him???Even with pre-loaded magazines, reloading requires time and BOTH hands to execute (so he couldn't cover himself with the pistol during the procedure.) Not ONCE in over 30 changes did someone rush him?
Careful, you're on a slippery slope there.
Nope; the incompetents of the police don't get to say, 'We could have stopped this if we had only had MORE power even though we didn't even utilize the ones we already possess."
Again, I don't think anyone is claiming that the only problem is the guns and that outlawing them is a magic fix,
...then you're not paying attention because that is precisely what is being bandied about by the vast majority of supposed
"news" stories.
BUT, we know with absolute certainty
No, "we" do NOT! You hold those opinions which are neither universally shared nor substantively factual.
that 1)statistically, the more guns are around, the more people get killed (may just be correllation, not causation, but that is still significant as a factor) and
As has been cited earlier in this thread, the MOST statistically safe areas in this country are those with the MOST guns as well as the most dangerous areas, nationally and globally, being those with the strictest gun control, exactly the opposite of your assertion.
2) it is too easy for any old shmuck to get a gun.
...but I thought the (manufactured) outrage about this case was that the shooter was such an obvious risk, on a terror watch list and not just " any old schmuck??"
If you need a gun immediately (a 3 day background check is going to ruin it for you) then you're most likely up to no good anyway.
If you mean a rifle, maybe it's the first day of hunting season or a varmint problem suddenly presented itself to a farmer. A groundhog infestation can KILL a large part of a cattle herd (broken legs are fatal), not to mention what a pack of coyotes could do to livestock AND people and both of those things are perfectly suited to an AR-15's capabilities, so that's not "no good," and anyway, firearm purchases of ANY type are subject to a mandatory purchaser-funded Homeland Security background check. It may only take minutes or it may take days depending on the agency itself, but it cannot be circumvented and if you mean a pistol, there IS already ANOTHER separate mandatory background check by the FBI and waiting period (Brady Law), and again, stereotypes aside, most gun shop owners are NOT in business to sell to mass murderers and will often refuse to sell to individuals they believe pose a risk, which is their right. I'm NOT saying that a shop owner's gut check should be democracy's sole line of defense against gun sales to mass murderers, but buying a weapon is nowhere NEAR as easy as most folks who know nothing about guns believe.
And despite all the it's-not-the-AR15's-fault arguments I hear, not one person has countered the argument, as far as I am aware (made by many responsible gun owners/afficandos themselves) of what the hell you actually need one of those for?
They're sporting rifles, tools to be used, and I just provided you TWO examples where an AR-15 is the BEST tool for the job, at least that's what I USE mine for.
Just like assault weapons, I similarly see no reasonable justification for semi handguns either.
Doesn't matter; there ARE people and laws which agree that are otherwise.
because when it comes down to it, there's no reason other than having a cooler toy.
Mine are much less toys than my basses and the ones I have are VERY purpose suited to what I use them for, home defense and personal carry. That I have never had to shoot someone with them is immaterial; they DO their job.
-
Piss on my back and tell me it's raining.
Adapted from The Outlaw Josie Wales- one of my all time favourites.
Frequently, comes to mind when hearing politicians or media speaking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4e8iAofnrw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4e8iAofnrw)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4e8iAofnrw
-
About the LAST band you'd expect to make a song about that phrase, Skid Row, has an excellent ditty which covers politicians, education, and the whole nine yards. They never got their due as a"serious" band which is a shame.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJtX121x5o0
-
Shooting groundhogs and coyotes with AR-15s? Very huntsmannish, I must say. Shows a strong bond with nature as you would expect. Kind of like gatling-gunning down bison herds, they were a pest that needed to be eradicated too. All the grass they stole from the domestic cattle.
-
Shooting groundhogs and coyotes with AR-15s? Very huntsmannish, I must say. Shows a strong bond with nature as you would expect. Kind of like gatling-gunning down bison herds, they were a pest that needed to be eradicated too. All the grass they stole from the domestic cattle.
(sigh)
from Modern Sporting Rifle Facts (http://nssf.org/msr/facts.cfm):
AR-15-style rifles are no more powerful than other hunting rifles of the same caliber and in most cases are chambered in calibers less powerful than common big-game hunting cartridges like the 30-06 Springfield and .300 Win. Mag.
Then there are rifles such as the Smith & Wesson M&P 15-22, which are no more powerful than any common small game rifle using .22LR cartridges. But ooh, it's really scary looking, so let's just ban it, right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmasGwz3iXk
-
Forgive me, Dave, silly me, this is a hunting gun and valiantly tries to look like one, I forgot.
(http://images.slickguns.com/specialpages/oracle.jpg)
You take one look at that thing and you know it's a hunting gun for rodent and carnivore control, yeah!
Shouldn't we build cars so they look like tanks too, way cool! I want my Volvo Kingtiger on the Autobahn. And all passenger planes in camouflage with fake bombs and rockets - why should that influence the pilots?
Us Europeans are certainly weird. My uncle hunts, I've seen his rifles, he's a very conservative man, but he would never get near a vulgar contraption such as the one pictured above. Might have to do with the fact that as a kid he lost an arm playing with WW II ammo he thought "looked cool". So did his two friends. One of them died, the other was permanently blinded by the shrapnel. My uncle always says: I pulled the lucky straw!
-
So you think it should be banned b/c you think it looks vulgar? I guess that's better than that pussy reporter from the
NY Post NY Daily News who fabricated a story about how he was traumatized by shooting one.
They are popular hunting rifles, no bigger than conventional looking rifles. They're accurate, easy to shoot, easy to take apart and clean, and modular for easier part replacement. They're no less safe than other rifles of the same caliber. One shot per trigger pull, like every other semi-auto on the planet. Why wouldn't they be used for hunting?
-
Why wouldn't they be used for hunting?
Because in some states they won't let you - the AR-15 is deemed by some to be too small for deer.
-
I like the aesthetics of my pre-WWII Savage Model 99 better. The .300 Savage caliber doesn't have the range, the muzzle velocity or the capacity of the AR-15, but it holds 5 rounds in a rotary magazine.
You know what the old hunters say: "One shot, one deer. Two shots, maybe one deer. Three shots, no deer."
Leaving two extra shots for lurking tin cans.
(http://ataleoftwothirties.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Model-99-adjusted.jpg)
-
Shooting groundhogs and coyotes with AR-15s? Very huntsmannish, I must say. Shows a strong bond with nature as you would expect. Kind of like gatling-gunning down bison herds, they were a pest that needed to be eradicated too. All the grass they stole from the domestic cattle.
You obviously don't understand the significance of the word "varmint." Look at page 18 of this (http://www.tn.gov/assets/entities/twra/attachments/huntguide.pdf).
I am NOT "hunting." It IS eradication as efficiently as possible. Groundhogs are in no danger of going extinct, (I regularly pass three or four beside the road sunning in the middle of metro Knoxville every day on my way to work) but because they are burrowing animals, an AR's ability to repeat fire and be extremely accurate means that it is more humane to dispatch one at the edge of a burrow with a quick follow-up shot rather than have the animal die slowly underground after being hit non-fatally. The .223 is perfect for a groundhog. Before I had the AR, I used a bolt action .243 and only aimed for head shots. That way if I missed, I missed completely. .223 means 223 thousands of an inch or 5.56 mm, a very SMALL round. The difference between it and the .22, considered a toy in power and fit only for squirrels and rabbits, is a relatively larger powder load.
Coyotes? The rifle itself rarely kills more of them than they do of each other after one is hit and they never leave bodies because they eat/tear each other apart and drag off the pieces and that should tell you exactly WHY they require such harsh measures. They are not indigenous to this area and only thrived after moving here 30-40 years ago from the west because wolves and panthers were eradicated 150 years ago. Most of them aren't even true coyotes, but half breed coy-dogs that have no natural fear of man and will eat a small child just as quickly as they will a calf, and it does happen. They also kill for its own sake and will often leave mauled carcasses to rot.
Even though this area is overrun with whitetail deer, which had been wolf/panther prey, the coyotes ignore them and go after domestic animals, pets, and children first. They average three or four calves out of ten births every year. That's a loss of over $3000, VERY conservatively. Beef cattle have high birth mortality anyway, but the coyotes effectively double it and they HAVE also killed or injured mothers to the point that euthanasia was required.
...and also, the "right to bear arms" isn't about hunting anyway. It's the US Constitution calling for its citizens to forcibly depose of tyranny. "Militia"gets bandied around without context:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
..and you know that legal distinction, even one as old as that one, is significant. While modern urbanism views it as archaic, outside of a few urban areas where the media is also concentrated, the gun is still very much the "law of the land," (like on my family farm) and that's why many Americans will never swallow the idea that human civilization has advanced beyond the need for weapons, because it hasn't.
-
I think the military look of some weapons implies a certain "image" of what they are to be used for. Military weapons are made to shoot and kill people, full stop, not animals. It should make everyone think why people would want to adorn themselves with that type of look. I also find it worrisome how hunters - along with their guns - have taken on a more and more military look (camouflaged uniform type garments) over the decades, these days they look like they go to war like some mercenary unit and not out to hunt.
Now I'm a WWII buff as much as anyone here - but that doesn't give me the inclination to keep a Kingtiger tank at home that can actually fire - or dress up in Waffen SS "Flecktarn" battle fatigues.
And I personally think coyotes are cool, they have better family values than most humans. Your argument that there are not enough mountain lions and wolves around to keep their numbers down is an interesting one, now how did the mountain lion and wolf numbers get so low, didn't that have something to do with cattle protection too? Whenever man feels the necessity to intervene with the population numbers of a certain species it is because of his own prior wrongdoing. And: The concept that coyotes might eradicate American cattle masses without human intervention is in ecological terms a laughable one. You just seem to hate them. More cattle gets run over by cars than eaten by coyotes - now don't get ideas with motorists please! - which you have conveniently stamped with every carnivore clichée imaginable ("kill with lust", "eat their own", "not racially pure", "not indigenous", even the "eat small children"-adage, we're getting firmly onto Brothers Grimm territory really ...).
Don't get me wrong, I don't have issues with a single dangerous coyote being taken out (wolves are thankfully returning to Germany and of course some of them will have to be killed if they become a concrete danger), but I'm wary of qualifying a whole species as dangerous, damaging and worthy of eradication. They mass-killed foxes here in Germany in the 50ies to 80ies because they were allegedly rabies carriers only to admit sheepishly in the 90ies that other species - squirrels among them - are much more prone carriers. And the rabbit and pheasant population neither rose during the fox mass killings nor has it now gone down. We would probably have to breed foxes to keep the overpopulation of pheasants and rabbits (both not indigenous, but introduced for hunting purposes) in check.
-
In general, I'm not very pro-hunting. I realize it's necessary for some people and that's fine. Usually, though, it's something I wouldn't want to have anything to do with. I barely even eat any meat. But I have to make the exception with coyotes. They have a reputation in this area of sneaking into the city at night and killing cats, dogs, etc. There is plenty of evidence to support that this is going on. From what I've heard, trying to stop them isn't very effective here. If someone is killing coyotes, though, he is doing a public service as far as I'm concerned. I think to some extent coyotes have been given a reputation that's better than they deserve in popular culture. My grandfather even had a painting of a coyote on the wall that I remember from my childhood. But in real life coyotes are unwanted predators.
-
Because in some states they won't let you - the AR-15 is deemed by some to be too small for deer.
That's not surprising. In some calibers they are too small for deer.
Gersh Kuntzmman (no, really) is the NY Daily News reporter who claimed that firing an AR-15 "felt like a bazooka and sounded like a cannon."
Squeeze lightly on the trigger and the resulting explosion of firepower is humbling and deafening (even with ear protection). The recoil bruised my shoulder, which can happen if you don't know what you're doing. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary form of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable.
That's the kind of hysteria we're seeing.
Here's a clip from 5 years ago, retitled in response to his article. Terrifying!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fc-hqiAlfQM&feature=youtu.be
-
Ok, Dave advocates taking 7-year-olds to shooting ranges firing wannabe-military look guns, his point being somewhat opaque other than that we should all be less hysteric (tell that to the parents of the Orlando victims). Maybe that little girl should take an AR-15 (in pink?) to school so she can fend off the coyotes trying to eat her on her way home.
I rest my (gun) case!
-
(https://www.gunsamerica.com/UserImages/162593/970174084/wm_5347774.jpg)
-
But for myself, I prefer the classic shape.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/1973_Colt_AR15_SP1.jpg)
-
I think the military look of some weapons implies a certain "image" of what they are to be used for. Military weapons are made to shoot and kill people, full stop, not animals. It should make everyone think why people would want to adorn themselves with that type of look. I also find it worrisome how hunters - along with their guns - have taken on a more and more military look (camouflaged uniform type garments) over the decades, these days they look like they go to war like some mercenary unit and not out to hunt.
The irony is that when the M-16, the military version of the AR-15 was introduced to the military in Vietnam, soldiers viewed it as a toy and disdained it. There were teething problems after bad cleaning recommendations and lower grade ammo which gave it a reputation for being unreliable, and the entire AR-family ("AR" stands for "Armalite Corporation," the company that Eugene Stoner worked for when he designed the rifle; there are other "AR" series rifles.) was maligned until it was proven in the first Gulf War. So among "killers," this 'scary looking' rifle was hardly regarded until 40 years after its introduction.
And I personally think coyotes are cool, they have better family values than most humans.
I invite you to witness what a rampaging pack of them can and will do to anything they come across. Again, MOST of the animals are not true coyotes and the cross breeding with dogs is what has made them so dangerous and also why they butcher each other at the least provocation.
Your argument that there are not enough mountain lions and wolves around to keep their numbers down is an interesting one, now how did the mountain lion and wolf numbers get so low, didn't that have something to do with cattle protection too?
Didn't have much cattle here then; wolves and panthers were killed off by fur traders mostly starting 150 years before (incidentally almost ALL of those hides went to European royalty). The geography of the area contained them. Farmers might have shot an occasional straggler, but there was no organized wholesale cull. Panthers STILL exist here; they've just learned to hide from people to survive. I have seen two in person in the wild along with a large lynx. Officially wildlife management denies their existence, but most folks who have lived here have seen otherwise. It's kind of hard to explain away a large three-foot feline tail cut off by a hay mower.
Whenever man feels the necessity to intervene with the population numbers of a certain species it is because of his own prior wrongdoing.
I agree in principle, but my personal reality is that "I" have to deal with the fallout of many, many other's people's negligence and I do not have the luxury of ignoring the problem that they do.
And: The concept that coyotes might eradicate American cattle masses without human intervention is in ecological terms a laughable one. You just seem to hate them. More cattle gets run over by cars than eaten by coyotes - now don't get ideas with motorists please!
The numbers I gave are the averages for MY farm; that's just one of thousands in this region. I don't care how laughable it seems to you; wait until you're digging an oversized grave with a front-end loader or agonizing over leaving a mauled scared animal whose offspring has been ripped to pieces and left in front of it in the middle of the night to get a vet to see if it can be helped.
- which you have conveniently stamped with every carnivore clichée imaginable ("kill with lust", "eat their own",
Coy-dogs, the animals which most often pack hunt and rampage have a super rigid social structure, and when one of them is injured, they turn on it brutally and will also kill any intra-pack defender or pack member even accidentally injured in the fracas. I am not repeating any sort of myth; I have SEEN it multiple times firsthand.
"not racially pure"
Full blooded coyotes don't group into packs, and for those who have to deal with them, including the official TWRA classification, the generic term "coyote" is understood to be a blanket generalization. "Legit" coyotes showed up as soon as wolves and panthers were deposed, but it wasn't until urban sprawl and the loss of family farms allowed for rampant interbreeding with dogs in the past few decades that they became the problem they are. The indigenous critically endangered red wolf, (which is unlike any idea of a wolf most folks have) which is VERY shy, has been almost wiped out by coyote competition. Red wolves share predatory (rabbits, squirrels, groundhogs, etc) habits and habitat here as true coyotes but were so shy that no one knew how decimated they had become until the late 1980's.
even the "eat small children"-adage, we're getting firmly onto Brothers Grimm territory really ...).
I tried to find some news stories but all the local publications are either subscription-only online and/or extremely limited in archives and national wire stories about the election dominate the active sections. The last time a child was killed that I can recall was two years ago, and offhand I can think of at least a dozen cases in the past few years. Locals teach their children to be careful, and like I said about the media in general, they don't know shit about what happens outside of a concrete and asphalt-insulated existence, so there are no mass media appeals of teary-eyed mothers calling to kill every coyote.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have issues with a single dangerous coyote being taken out (wolves are thankfully returning to Germany and of course some of them will have to be killed if they become a concrete danger), but I'm wary of qualifying a whole species as dangerous, damaging and worthy of eradication.
I forget that you have no context to understand how I "hunt" coyotes. There is no stalking of or tracking process; I set up in the pasture field where they have been rampaging at dusk and pick them off as they run through in a pack. When one is hit, the others turn on it immediately, preferring to kill rather then even flee. Even with 30 rounds, five or six aimed shots is stretching things because, well, I'm in pasture field and those bullets go a VERY long way. Once you see them literally rip one other apart in seconds, any thoughts of "management" are deposed. These are NOT wild animals; they are dangerous hybrids.
That's the point about the whole issue of guns that those who think banning them will fix society's ills don't seem to understand and don't want to understand. You live in a different world, one that has a thick layer of civilization to insulate you from your environment, both legally and in terms of survival. You quote abstracts and statistics; I'm in the field in the middle of the night. Seriously, you have NO idea what you are talking about to the point that it is insulting. All it would take to show you how wrong you are would be one encounter of a pack of these thing coming after YOU with no fear after having killed a helpless calf, loyal dog or yes, even a child.
-
Gersh Kuntzmman (no, really) is the NY Daily News reporter who claimed that firing an AR-15 "felt like a bazooka and sounded like a cannon."
I imagine that firing my 30/30 or a double barreled shotgun would probably kill him. That that worthless hack got paid to write his fiction shows just how worthless the corporate media in this country truly is. AR's have a recoil spring that absorbs MOST of the rifle's recoil; it's almost like firing a BB gun. The round is generally supersonic, so it's loud, but no more than a medium- volume snare drum. M-4 style carbines with subsonic ammo are quieter.
-
I don't doubt for a second that a coyote can kill a child - lots of animals are able to kill humans and sometimes do. Would I defend my or someone's else's child against one of them? Of course I would, even if it was the last unicorn! But do I believe that you have to deplete the species so that man can live utterly safe from a statistical point of view? No. I don't want a world without rattlesnakes you might step on or wolves and sharks that might go after you.
And while I lived in Black Africa for three years I was surrounded by poisonous snakes and encountered a few of them (they loved to sun-bake in half-built homes and in Africa there are a lot of those) - it never occurred to me that they should all be killed because of that danger. Neither did the local population, they were just careful where to step.
-
One of my favorites...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIF3pW_kTuo&ab_channel=KuroiSerenity
-
But do I believe that you have to deplete the species so that man can live utterly safe from a statistical point of view?
You're not listening: Dangerously aggressive, non-indigenous, hybrid subspecies which did not exist at all until 50 years ago, being killed while patrolling past domestic animal kill-sites. REAL coyotes are experts at hiding and in NO danger whatsoever.
-
Retired Justice John Paul Stephens suggested a wording change to the Second Amendment (adding five words) which I think would be helpful. His well-reasoned argument is found here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-extra-words-that-can-fix-the-second-amendment/2014/04/11/f8a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html
The revised wording, which I actually think captures the original concept well: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”
-
Jefferson thought we should be armed at all times.
-
Ok, Dave advocates taking 7-year-olds to shooting ranges firing wannabe-military look guns, his point being somewhat opaque other than that we should all be less hysteric (tell that to the parents of the Orlando victims). Maybe that little girl should take an AR-15 (in pink?) to school so she can fend off the coyotes trying to eat her on her way home.
I rest my (gun) case!
Uwe, I can see why you have a hard time understanding our culture. After all, Germany has no history of firearms usage. :P
FWIW, I live five miles from downtown and there are plenty of coyotes and foxes around here. It's no laughing matter.
Retired Justice John Paul Stephens suggested a wording change to the Second Amendment (adding five words) which I think would be helpful. His well-reasoned argument is found here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-extra-words-that-can-fix-the-second-amendment/2014/04/11/f8a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html
The revised wording, which I actually think captures the original concept well: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”
Al, you know as well as I that there's zero chance of the Second Amendment being amended.
-
Uwe, I can see why you have a hard time understanding our culture. After all, Germany has no history of firearms usage. :P
A real cheap shot (pun intended!), Dave!
I could counter: Maybe we have learned a lesson or two. And please don't elevate that private gun ownership-fetish to being a part of - otherwise in many ways admirable - US "culture". That's like saying being allowed to drive 150 miles/h is a part of German "culture" - I don't quite see it up there with Beethoven or Goethe. Let's settle on "national peculiarities" for both.
-
The news today is the House of representatives will vote on legislation that will prevent suspected terrorists from buying guns. It is troubling that something like a terrorist watch list, derived from no due process, may be used to take away a constitutional right. Ironically, the government passing these laws is responsible for arming terrorists in the first place.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/06/law-enforcement-sources-gun-used-paris-terrorist-attacks-came-phoenix/
-
please don't elevate that private gun ownership-fetish to being a part of - otherwise in many ways admirable - US "culture". That's like saying being allowed to drive 150 miles/h is a part of German "culture" - I don't quite see it up there with Beethoven or Goethe. Let's settle on "national peculiarities" for both.
...but it is. This nation was formed out of armed invasion and rebellion against colonial masters and there are still very strong ties to the idea of 'if we don't like the government, we'll get rid of it.' Germany only graduated out of monarchy with Hitler. While the US may romanticize its past, we DID beat the English (twice) and the French, and numerous other governments BECAUSE we were essentially a bunch of guerillas armed to the teeth. We've not had centuries of submission to monarchy to condition us as a people to automatically submit to authority and though modern mass media and Madison Avenue have worked hand-in-hand to pacify this country and turn it into a mindless consumerist oligarchy, there ARE a few of us here who have a serious problem with that.
-
Al, you know as well as I that there's zero chance of the Second Amendment being amended.
At present, agreed. However, I'm not sure that's a given over the next 20+ years.
-
"Germany only graduated out of monarchy with Hitler. "
Credit where credit's due: With the Weimar Republic which Hitler killed off and which was left unsupported by pretty much all parties except the Social Democrats who were the only ones to speak up in the last semi-free session of the Reichstag/German parliament!
And I don't deny the relevance of the right to an armed uprising against real or perceived oppressors to the creation and early existence of the US of A. But maybe after more than 200 years of generally decent democratic experiences (with a few bumps here and there), you could perhaps put a bit more trust in your countrymen or is it that anybody going to Washington DC to work automatically becomes an oppressor and loses all American values? Plus for outside oppressors you have a well-equipped army to defend with.
I also doubt the continued relevance of a population under arms keeping its freedom in today's world. Neither Assange nor Snowden nor Ms Manning needed to fire a shot to rattle the system - and no bullet could stop what they triggered. The concept that even the mass of today's privately held arms in the US could prevent a 21st Century totalitarian surveillance state using current and future technology means is archaic at best. You could defend yourself against a zombie infestation with all those guns of course, true. Such acute threats by "hybrid species" 8) (cheap shot from me, I know) aside, I believe that doing away with the internet and other free media via technological means would today do more to pave a way to a dictatorship than confiscation of all privately held guns in America. Keep your computers and give up your guns except for a few to defend your cattle agains coyotes and other predators, I'm ok with that. :mrgreen:
Now you say: "But it's historic and in the Constitution!" That's true, but some centuries ago large parts of the Western World also came to the conclusion that the up to then dearly held practice of witchhunting was no longer needed to preserve public order. :-X Your Constitution thankfully did away with kings and queens, pretty much unheard of at the time, why does a piece of human philosophy that was once inherently modernist need to be unalterably preserved like it was a mosquito caught in amber as society progresses and faces new challenges? Ask yourself whether George Washington or Thomas Jefferson would say to Orlando: "That is the price we have to pay and what we envisaged we would want to pay." Am I allowed to have my doubts about that?
-
A real cheap shot (pun intended!), Dave!
I could counter: Maybe we have learned a lesson or two. And please don't elevate that private gun ownership-fetish to being a part of - otherwise in many ways admirable - US "culture". That's like saying being allowed to drive 150 miles/h is a part of German "culture" - I don't quite see it up there with Beethoven or Goethe. Let's settle on "national peculiarities" for both.
Then there's the "German Porn" thing...
-
Most American websites are obsessed with anal sex I've heard! :mrgreen:
-
Most American websites are obsessed with anal sex I've heard! :mrgreen:
That may be true, but here they are obsessed with stuff going IN. :o
-
We've aways had that quest for Lebensraum in us.
-
At present, agreed. However, I'm not sure that's a given over the next 20+ years.
I am. No chance of ever getting 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress to even get it it submitted to the states, no chance of 2/3 of the states approving any change. No chance of it happening by the constitutional convention method.
The news today is the House of representatives will vote on legislation that will prevent suspected terrorists from buying guns. It is troubling that something like a terrorist watch list, derived from no due process, may be used to take away a constitutional right. Ironically, the government passing these laws is responsible for arming terrorists in the first place.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/06/law-enforcement-sources-gun-used-paris-terrorist-attacks-came-phoenix/
I'm appalled that it could even be allowed to come up for a vote.
-
so a few people who may be on the terrorist no fly list by mistake can't buy guns for awhile. i say suck it up for the greater good. if this becomes a law that stops one person from murdering innocent people than its worth it. some sacrifices must be made in times of war. no , this will not lead to a domino affect with other "rights"
being in jeopardy. you have to start somewhere and whatever it is will not be popular with everyone, nothing ever is. gov. brown of ca. just signed some perfectly logical gun and ammunition legislation. more states should look at that because this country will never agree on one, uniform set of gun control laws foe everyone.
the right usually has no problem wiping their ass with the constitution when it comes to denying people certain civil rights, must often of a religious or 'alternate lifestyle' nature. but somehow this is no fly/no gun thing is more important.
-
I'm appalled that it could even be allowed to come up for a vote.
I'm pleased. Any short-term inconvenience to someone on the no fly list matters not at all. And I'm aware the list has problems, but they are not consequential compared to adding an increment to public safety. Those incorrectly on the list will eventually get off it.
-
so a few people who may be on the terrorist no fly list by mistake can't buy guns for awhile. i say suck it up for the greater good. if this becomes a law that stops one person from murdering innocent people than its worth it. some sacrifices must be made in times of war. no , this will not lead to a domino affect with other "rights"
being in jeopardy. you have to start somewhere and whatever it is will not be popular with everyone, nothing ever is. gov. brown of ca. just signed some perfectly logical gun and ammunition legislation. more states should look at that because this country will never agree on one, uniform set of gun control laws foe everyone.
I'm pleased. Any short-term inconvenience to someone on the no fly list matters not at all. And I'm aware the list has problems, but they are not consequential compared to adding an increment to public safety. Those incorrectly on the list will eventually get off it.
Denying someone's rights based on a secret list when they haven't even been accused of a crime, much less committed one, is a complete gutting of the Fifth Amendment. If that doesn't scare the shit out of you, nothing will. No domino effect? Without due process of law, you have no other rights.
It won't prevent mass shootings anyway. How many mass shooters have been on that list? Zero.
-
I think it's worth noting that due process of law is fairly often used to restrict or prevent US citizens from buying or owning firearms. Fully automatic weapons and silencers are very expensive to license, and not everyone can have them. Convicted felons and illegal aliens are generally prevented from owning firearms. Courts can find grounds such as domestic violence for preventing firearm ownership.
In some (few) of these cases, no one has been accused or convicted of a crime, yet their rights are restricted. Although few, such examples indicate that rights can be restricted. However, there appears to be due process involved in all of these examples.
The current direction of US laws seems to be in favor of broader rights of concealed carry, and more ability to carry firearms in a wider variety of public and privately-owned areas.
Perhaps the point is that no due process has been carried out in terms of the no fly list. What about someone on the no fly list wanting to travel with a group? Is denying them air travel equivalent to restricting their freedom of assembly, another constitutionally guaranteed right? (I'm rather surprised no one has tried that argument.)
I don't want to get into too many "what if" arguments, just to point out that somewhere, we need to get a handle on the type of person owning and using firearms. If firearms don't kill people, but their owners do, then we need to get more control of ownership and access. We can respectfully disagree about whether the no fly list is a place to start. I think it's a worthwhile effort even if the best it does is contribute to an ongoing discussion that has any nuance at all.
-
Okay, we've all had our say, it's been respectful, time to move along.